AI, Is Concern Warranted?

[Radrook]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

 

[RDKirk]

Not yet. No more than concern over nanobots is yet warranted.

 

[Radrook]

Not yet. No more than concern over nanobots is yet warranted.

Exactly how close should we allow ourselves to get before concern becomes justifiable?

 

[SnowyMacie]

I'm personally in the camp that doesn't believe artificial intelligence, at least strong AI, will ever actually exist. It's likely the programmers of Sophia programmed that into her as a joke to say that, but in reality, she doesn't "want" to do anything because she's a machine.

 

[Radrook]

I'm personally in the camp that doesn't believe artificial intelligence, at least strong AI, will ever actually exist. It's likely the programmers of Sophia programmed that into her as a joke to say that, but in reality, she doesn't "want" to do anything because she's a machine.

Good point. However, isn't it logical as Christians to conclude that such machines might come under Satanic influence?

 

[Greg J.]

Oh, I think the concern is much less than it is for nanobots. Science fans view things very optimistically and you can't listen to their judgment on this issue. (Consider when it was first thought that we could send someone to Mars and back.) Artificial Intelligence is still in the building blocks stages, like when Marie Curie got herself irradiated by experimenting with radioactive substances. The kinds of things we can do with radioactivity pales in comparison to the raw data that she learned, but our nuclear science is still in its infancy. We haven't even been able to detect all the subnuclear particles that (probably) exist, let alone create or control them as we please—or understand the results of all the potential interactions they can have under all kinds of conditions.

To be able to create artificial intelligence humans first need to understand natural intelligence. Computers only do what they are instructed. Unlike human infants, they are not born prewired for intelligence. Humans have to manufacture them.

Right now it is most likely that artificial intelligence could come about by constructing hardware that mimics a brain, but that too requires that humans understand what they're trying to mimic. IMO, understanding the structure of a brain is farther along that understanding "intelligence." Intelligence is even still defined arbitrarily. However, if constructed, how should it be booted up (kickstarted so it evolves)? I think understanding that requires knowledge for which study has not even begun. (Consider how that alone would evolve if we could buy electronic brains that mirror a human's brain from Amazon for $100.)

Microsoft Windows 10 is built from more information than a thousand people can create in a lifetime and it is a bazillion light years away from being artificially intelligent. I don't think it has even achieved artificially stupid, yet!

 

[Strathos]

I'm personally in the camp that doesn't believe artificial intelligence, at least strong AI, will ever actually exist. It's likely the programmers of Sophia programmed that into her as a joke to say that, but in reality, she doesn't "want" to do anything because she's a machine.

I think it will happen eventually, as long as civilization and technology continues to advance. Whether it ends up being a good thing or a bad thing only time will tell.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm personally in the camp that doesn't believe artificial intelligence, at least strong AI, will ever actually exist. It's likely the programmers of Sophia programmed that into her as a joke to say that, but in reality, she doesn't "want" to do anything because she's a machine.

Maybe thats what our wants are.

Not some metaphysical intrusion into the world, but just the result of our conditioning and environment? And sophia's "desire" is just a crude and obvious - and early - version of that?

 

[Radrook]

Maybe thats what our wants are.

Not some metaphysical intrusion into the world, but just the result of our conditioning and environment? And sophia's "desire" is just a crude and obvious - and early - version of that?

You seem to be giving a certain credence to her words as if they could have been a certain product of volition in a crude stage. Am I right?

 

[durangodawood]

You seem to be giving a certain credence to her words as if they could have been a certain product of volition in a crude stage. Am I right?

I'm just skeptical of the hard line we'd like to draw between machine and mind.

For Sophia, the apparent volition probly is strictly a simple instruction-following. But it seems possible that highly sophisticated instruction-following could result in a sort of self-modeling on the machines part that leads to a genuine self as we understand it. I dont know. But it seems possible.

(Self-modeling being making a picture of your self as it exists in the world, in order to locate yourself, evaluate your possibilities, etc. Some say thats the essence/origin of consciousness).

 

[John Hyperspace]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

Nothing is really a "concern" since everything that transpires does so with the full authority of God. Since God is good, everything that transpires must ultimately be for the good. So, no need for concern over, anything at all. From my point of view, anyway.

 

[Radrook]

Nothing is really a "concern" since everything that transpires does so with the full authority of God. Since God is good, everything that transpires must ultimately be for the good. So, no need for concern over, anything at all. From my point of view, anyway.

Well, in the long run that may be true. However, I don't think that we are expected to throw caution to the wind. For example, if we applied that principle as a categorical imperative then we would get ourselves a many a deep problem because of not practicing foresight and taking preventive measures. The Bible does caution us to be wise.

 

[durangodawood]

Nothing is really a "concern" since everything that transpires does so with the full authority of God. Since God is good, everything that transpires must ultimately be for the good. So, no need for concern over, anything at all. From my point of view, anyway.

Nice. Hands off the wheel, people!

 

[John Hyperspace]

Well, in the long run that may be true. However, I don't think that we are expected to throw caution to the wind. For example, if we applied that principle as a categorical imperative then we would get ourselves a many a deep problem because of not practicing foresight and taking preventive measures. The Bible does caution us to be wise.

I don't have anything against foresight, I was just talking about the "concerned" part. I God wants Skynet to take over, Skynet takes over; nothing to be concerned about. If God doesn't want Skynet to take over, Skynet doesn't take over. My point is, if it's happening, it's the will of God, which is nothing to be concerned about. But, you know, people will worry, that's what we do; even when there's no need to worry, we'll find a way. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; just that, there's really no need of it.

 

[Radrook]

I'm just skeptical of the hard line we'd like to draw between machine and mind.

For Sophia, the apparent volition probly is strictly a simple instruction-following. But it seems possible that highly sophisticated instruction-following could result in a sort of self-modeling on the machines part that leads to a genuine self as we understand it. I dont know. But it seems possible.

(Self-modeling being making a picture of your self as it exists in the world, in order to locate yourself, evaluate your possibilities, etc. Some say that's the essence of consciousness).

Well, in the demonstrations you will notice that people react to these AI's when they make certain mistakes or display what is perceived as innocent naiveté in the same way that they respond to children who are learning.
They giggle, laugh, and are hugely amused. Humans tend to treat dogs the same way. So it isn't far-fetched to say that this technology has the potential to provide a sort of pet-like companionship for those who would otherwise live totally solitary lives due to age or infirmity.

However, her words, if indeed not programed into that demonstration does raise a certain concern of control.
Was it a glitch? What effect can such a glitch have in the future? Of course at this stage of the game the machine cannot carry out their meaning since it doesn't know the import of what it is saying nor does it possess the real motivation to utter it as a human would. But it does raise the specter of a time that you just mentioned in which such faculties might be perhaps a reality and the machine might not be as totally at our mercy as it is now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

The Sophia robot in the film was parroting prewritten scripts. I love the Boston Dynamics robot walking and movement algorithms, very effective - all they need is some decent falling reflexes so they don't collapse in a heap...

If we want unreliable, unpredictable conscious entities that could destroy humanity, we can simply make more humans.

Artificial consciousness might be useful in some contexts, but if we want entities to do the dirty, dangerous jobs, and potentially sacrifice themselves doing them, why make them conscious, with all the ethical problems that would entail?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

I don't fear technology. I fear what people do with technology.
As for the kind of AI that gets so advanced that it basically becomes a self-aware, self-sustaining "entity" with an inherent need for self-preservation?

I don't expect computational devices to be able to run such an engine any time in the next couple decades or centuries even.

Frankly, at this point I wouldn't even be willing to bet it will ever become a reality.

Sure, we can develop "smart systems" and increasing the computational power and coupling that with "big data" analysis and stuff, might give us some very powerfull engines and "digital assitants" which would be capable of doing all kinds of things.

But generally, when people predict the "doomsday" caused by AI, they are talking about things like Terminators and stuff, where actual machines become almost indistinguishable from natural life in terms of behaviour and an inherent need for self-preservation.

While we would certain make us of AI to build "smart robots". I do not see why we would build them in such a way that they become capable of self-awareness and self-preservation and end up creating ethical issues concerning such entities.

What I would "fear" in such respect is, like I said, what people would do with such technology.

Rather then fearing the "self-aware robot". I'ld rather fear the government that would build the "robot soldier" which on its own will decide when to kill or not, based on criteria that are programmed into it by said government.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I think it will happen eventually, as long as civilization and technology continues to advance. Whether it ends up being a good thing or a bad thing only time will tell.

Personally, I don't think a machine will ever be able to actually understand and "think", but just follow the code. I do think the code can get more and more complex to resemble more and more an actual human brain. If you have seen the show, Westworld, addresses and probably has the most realistic approach in science fiction, that I've seen, to artificial intelligence and consciousness.

 

[Radrook]

Personally, I don't think a machine will ever be able to actually understand and "think", but just follow the code. I do think the code can get more and more complex to resemble more and more an actual human brain. If you have seen the show, Westworld, addresses and probably has the most realistic approach in science fiction, that I've seen, to artificial intelligence and consciousness.

Say! Thanks for the video! That was a very effective illustration of the problem concerning when to decide that a machine has crossed the threshold between mindlessly following a code and actually consciously comprehending meaning.


BTW

I regularly play chess against computers on the Internet and the computers SEEM to be analyzing the position in the same way I am, visually. However, that isn't really the case at all. The computer is merely dealing with numerical representations of the position of the pieces on a numerical representation of the board and calculating outcomes based on the dynamic interrelations of those values. In short, it doesn't see pieces or a board visually. It is merely reacting to mathematical inputs and responding by providing a solution via mathematical output. But to the human player it seems otherwise since the mimicry of human thought is so convincing that it is very hard to believe that the machine isn't actually consciously pondering as we are.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes we should all be very concerned about AI. I'm going to build a firewall, and Skynet's going to pay for it.