Musk, Hawking and Others warn of AI Arms race

[troutman]

To defeat AI, don't we just have to pull the plug?

http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/intervie...rintelligence/

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

if you have sufficient free time before the apocalypse, the best article I have read regarding the path to Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) is here:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artifi...olution-1.html

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artifi...olution-2.html

the idea is that it's this huge struggle just to get through the early stages of amoeba/insect/frog/etc. intelligence, but there's a point where a self-learning construct will exponentially zoom past our level so quickly we won't even realize it. I find it exciting personally to not know what happens at that point, whether our own destruction or immortality.

I just find it hilarious to imagine that a super AI tasked with finding ways to make paper clips as efficiently as possible might just decide to transmute the Earth into a giant paper clip, just because it determines that would accomplish its goal.

If Keeanu Reeves has taught us anything, is that AI will certainly make us slaves. No more hockey at that point, and hopefully the Canucks still don't have a Cup.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

To defeat AI, don't we just have to pull the plug?

http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/intervie...rintelligence/

Bostrom is by far the most interesting guy on all of these techno-progressive issues. His stuff on space exploration, and ET life is the best.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

As an aside to all this social conformity that is typical to a CP thread...

Ah, the old "I'm a rebel therefore I must be right!" dodge. Who used that first, was it Plato disrespecting Socrates, or was it Aristotle making fun of both of them in his memoirs?

Originally Posted by peter12

There is this ideological perspective on technology, that it is plainly inevitable, and nothing we can do will be able to slow or halt its progress. This is demonstrably wrong. Anyone who advised their kids to take nuclear engineering as a career path today would be certifiably crazy.

Weaponized nuclear tech has only been around for 70 years. I'd be a little hesitant in proclaiming it successfully contained, especially when states like North Korea, Pakistan, and apartheid South Africa had/have such weapons. Besides which, nukes require all kinds of expensive and obvious infrastructure, whereas computers are ubiquitous and cheap, programmers and computer scientists plentiful, and robots and drones easy to buy or make yourself.

Additionally, "we" is pretty vague - who is "we"? If you think the Russians, just as one example, are going to forgo a possible military advantage because it might be dangerous, you are dreaming the big dream indeed. Nor will the Americans (who love the idea of fighting wars remotely more than anyone) give up this research - even if they somehow were convinced to sign treaties to that effect. After all, look at how seriously they took the bans on gas and biological weapons...

Saying that we *could* stay out of such research is like saying we *could* feed all the world's hungry, it's not a matter of what's theoretically possible if people were social insects working for the common good at all times, but what is actually possible given people as unruly, selfish, and ultimately short-sighted and unevenly sentient pack animals.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

There is nothing in this universe that has ever happened or ever will happen that cannot be explained.

Just because we don't know the answer, does not mean it's inexplicable. It only means that we cannot explain it... yet.

I don't really believe that. I think eventually, human intellectual capabilities will reach a wall and there will be some stuff we just won't be able to understand. There is no reason to think that we will continue to evolve in that direction. We probably have more questions now than we have ever had as a species and every discovery seems to lead to more. At some point, the human brain will probably have a limit.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't really believe that. I think eventually, human intellectual capabilities will reach a wall and there will be some stuff we just won't be able to understand. There is no reason to think that we will continue to evolve in that direction. We probably have more questions now than we have ever had as a species and every discovery seems to lead to more. At some point, the human brain will probably have a limit.

It's hard to say if it will get to that point. Our brains may evolve along with our vibrations or we may be able to 'hack' our brains or modify them with cyborg technology.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't really believe that. I think eventually, human intellectual capabilities will reach a wall and there will be some stuff we just won't be able to understand. There is no reason to think that we will continue to evolve in that direction. We probably have more questions now than we have ever had as a species and every discovery seems to lead to more. At some point, the human brain will probably have a limit.

Okay... even if we accept that this is true you still haven't demonstrated that something is inexplicable. Only that it is beyond limited human faculties. The explanation still exists.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay... even if we accept that this is true you still haven't demonstrated that something is inexplicable. Only that it is beyond limited human faculties. The explanation still exists.

Could it be that the purpose of humanity, if there even is one, is not to answer these kinds of questions?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

Could it be that the purpose of humanity, if there even is one, is not to answer these kinds of questions?

It is conceivable that there is a "purpose" to humanity, but it seems extremely unlikely... though language is clumsy here and it's not altogether clear what you mean by "purpose". Anyway, if there is such a "purpose", it could theoretically be anything at all, couldn't it?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It is conceivable that there is a "purpose" to humanity, but it seems extremely unlikely... though language is clumsy here and it's not altogether clear what you mean by "purpose". Anyway, if there is such a "purpose", it could theoretically be anything at all, couldn't it?

Do you think that humanity's technological progress over the past 200 years particularly has anything to do with natural selection?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It is conceivable that there is a "purpose" to humanity, but it seems extremely unlikely... though language is clumsy here and it's not altogether clear what you mean by "purpose". Anyway, if there is such a "purpose", it could theoretically be anything at all, couldn't it?

Do you think that humanity's technological progress over the past 200 years particularly is a feature of a mind absolutely grounded in ultimately rational and physical wiring?

[Thor]

I want to become part of a cybernetic being, so that I can travel the universe without regard for time.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

if you have sufficient free time before the apocalypse, the best article I have read regarding the path to Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) is here:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artifi...olution-1.html

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artifi...olution-2.html

the idea is that it's this huge struggle just to get through the early stages of amoeba/insect/frog/etc. intelligence, but there's a point where a self-learning construct will exponentially zoom past our level so quickly we won't even realize it. I find it exciting personally to not know what happens at that point, whether our own destruction or immortality.

I just find it hilarious to imagine that a super AI tasked with finding ways to make paper clips as efficiently as possible might just decide to transmute the Earth into a giant paper clip, just because it determines that would accomplish its goal.

I read that and many other articles a few days ago and it's had my mind buzzing.

The stuff on the Law of Increasing Returns as far as technology goes (I think that's what they called it, memory's foggy) is downright scary if you really think of it. The part about letting someone time travel X number of years and how far they'd have to move for the shock of how different the world was to actually kill them gave me a picture of the evolution of tech that was chilling. Some will say it's total BS.

That site is great btw (again didn't click and really hope it's the same one I was on). I read a ton of articles; really expanded what I'd known about the Fermi paradox. "We're special, were first, or were f**ed" has had me thinking just where we may be in that scale. Also between that, and the AI stuff.. Some creepy reasons we haven't seen any other signs of life in our little chunk of existence.

I would authorize BT to trade Johnny and Money to the Canucks for future considerations if I could be Johnny Depp's character in Transcendence and have a chance to see "what it's all really about". (Sorry for that)

[GGG]

I think the rise of AI will look much like the rise of humans. For a billion years nature was in control. In 40,000 years and really the last 200 humans have radically shaped the earth. Basically humans it a point in the intelligence curve that allowed them to a stable society that led to the development of science. And once that happenened in a cosmic time scale we instantly took over from natural selection.

AI will look the same we will hit that point where AI can advance on its own and we will be as powerless as a monkey or dolphin is to stop us.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

The bit about AI eventually making advancements so rapidly that humans could no longer "keep up" / process what's going on around them is, to me, a very real possibility.. At that point, we would be completely irrelevant and disposable.

Time to raise up guys. I just put my iPad in the washing machine.

[FlamesAddiction]

It would be great if we became like their pets though and just go along for the ride.

[Ozy_Flame]

Each human could be fitted with a cyanide pill if things get to robot-overlordy.

Not to sound morbid, but a quick, painless death is always an option if things get too hairy in this world. Which is probably on the menu within the next 50 years.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Each human could be fitted with a cyanide pill if things get to robot-overlordy.

Not to sound morbid, but a quick, painless death is always an option if things get too hairy in this world. Which is probably on the menu within the next 50 years.

Ozy Flame bringing the strong stuff! Anyone else have an entry into the "bleakest post in the thread" contest?

[polak]

If you build an AI without limbs (duh) and don't connect it to any network, how could it do any damage?

Obviously, if we plan on weaponizing it then we're throwing caution out the window. Their really should be some sort worldwide ban on AI weapons. Taking out the humanity of killing someone is ####ing brutal.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ozy Flame bringing the strong stuff! Anyone else have an entry into the "bleakest post in the thread" contest?

Well if the robots take over and want to off all of us in a quick and painless way, I'd be game! Also, if they put me in stasis and want to use me as a battery, well I've watched the Matrix and it looks pretty damn warm and comfortable.