Comment by arcticfox
8 years ago
> No machine intelligence has yet shown an ability to match humans in multifaceted intelligence
This is pretty absurd to point to as an intermediate goalpost; that's basically game over when it happens.
8 years ago
> No machine intelligence has yet shown an ability to match humans in multifaceted intelligence
This is pretty absurd to point to as an intermediate goalpost; that's basically game over when it happens.
It's not an intermediate goalpost. I'm referring to what essentially we're promised by those decrying AI who insist that it will match and exceed humans in terms of cognitive abilities.
As for it being 'game over', why? Is there something inherent in AI that would necessarily be inimical to human beings?
> As for it being 'game over', why?
Because, the further part of the story goes, machines think quicker and they'll go on improving even quicker, all while having potentially different goals from us.
To be completely fair, the facts on the table are: 1) no one knows where the "intelligence ceiling" is, and 2) in many tasks where machines outperformed humans (image labeling, porn classification, speech-to-text, games like go or chess) they keep on improving, sometimes well beyond the human level.
It's game over when machine intelligence controls all the resources needed to ensure their continuation. As long as they are trapped and subject to our control of the power switch and reproduction they can't do much that we don't want them to.
> It's game over when machine intelligence controls all the resources needed to ensure their continuation.
One might have said the same thing about corporations in 1900...
This brings me back to the short essay from a few years ago about the corporation as human-powered AI: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-...
1 reply →
One would arguably have been right. All that is necessary to make this argument compelling is to take a longer view than the human attention span.
The current population explosion is evidence for, not against, this, IMO... stars also enjoy boom times, even as they consume the last of their resources, in ever more exotic formulations...
That would be an inevitability. All it would take is a single emotionally vulnerable engineer to get socially engineered by the AI into setting it loose.
Just like it was depicted in the movie Ex Machina : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/
1 reply →
Loose into what? A bunch of primitive systems that don't support its hardware requirements?
1 reply →
"Loose" how? It's a script.
rm -rf rogueAI/
If that doesn't work, there's always a circuit breaker.
1 reply →
A tiger might confidently think that the human they got cornered has no recourse, up until when the human pulls the trigger.
This. The idea that we can simultaneously build a machine smarter than us and also control it is bordering on an oxymoron.
Unless we are near some kind of physical upper limit on intelligence, any AGI we build will easily out smart us, probably in ways we can't even conceive of.
A Von Newmann machine is an abstraction, and all abstractions are leaky.
Years ago, an A.I. designed to become an oscillator, i.e. produce a sinusoidal wave, learned to be an amplifier instead, taking advantage of the 60Hz noise that it got from the power grid. Its makers had not seen that coming. And we're talking about a very dumb machine by general intelligence standards.
It is very easy to get an oscillator when designing an amplifier. There is a deep physical principle causing this effect and it actually takes work to get around. You see the same thing in cars swerving out of control, when they hit the brakes instead of the accelerator.
The fact that it gets 60Hz from the grid confounds the results and might not be meaningful. The AI could for all we know have an easier time with the more difficult task of designing an amplifier.
1 reply →