Sam Harris Ted Talk on the danger of AI

[Berkut]

Pretty interesting talk:


https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ted-talk-can-we-build-ai-without-losing-control-over-it?utm_source=Main+List&utm_campaign=84f399b897-TED_Talk_on_AI_risk9_29_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f1c2a2c9db-84f399b897-207243337&mc_cid=84f399b897&mc_eid=243953d2b5


The subject itself is fascinating.


I would be interested in others ideas about this. In order to avoid repeating what was already said, please watch it before jumping into the discussion - it is only about 15 minutes.


Also, there is an interesting audience member. Pick them out at about 4:07 into the talk. I should go to more TED talks.

[The Brain]

Executive summary?

[celedhring]

Simplifying: Intelligent AIs are unavoidable. Since all technology gets better with the passing of time, they will naturally get so much better than we'll become irrelevant.

It seems to me this falls under "in the long run we're all dead" file.

He also talks about how robotics and such will throw off the economic balance creating lots of unemployment and inequality. This has been discussed previously in here, and I believe that it won't happen. Previous technology revolutions have made lots of jobs redundant indeed, but at the end of the day we've put all that manpower towards more productive labors and lifted the levels of prosperity for everybody.

[mongers]

.....

Also, there is an interesting audience member. Pick them out at about 4:07 into the talk. I should go to more TED talks.

This was you, wasn't it? 

[The Brain]

We probably should throw shoes into the machines or we'll be out of jobs.

[Hamilcar]

The machines will not replace us, we will become the machines.

[The Brain]

The machines will not replace us, we will become the machines.

Yes, likely power plants.

[Berkut]

Simplifying: Intelligent AIs are unavoidable. Since all technology gets better with the passing of time, they will naturally get so much better than we'll become irrelevant.

It seems to me this falls under "in the long run we're all dead" file.

He also talks about how robotics and such will throw off the economic balance creating lots of unemployment and inequality. This has been discussed previously in here, and I believe that it won't happen. Previous technology revolutions have made lots of jobs redundant indeed, but at the end of the day we've put all that manpower towards more productive labors and lifted the levels of prosperity for everybody.

This is a fallacy. Simply because it has been the case that new technoloy has allowed people to do other things, it doesn't mean that there is an inexhaustible list of other things that need to be done, while there is certainly a finite list of human needs that must be met.

Basically, history has been a case where humans have been able to only do a small subset of the useful possible activities. So as we created technology to handle some activitites, it has freed up humans to engage in other more useful activities that they previously did not have time for. But it would be false to conclude that this is just something that is infinite - indeed, it seems pretty clear it is not.

And given AI that can literally do anything a human can do (which in and of itself is a difference in kind from what we have seen before, hence previous lessons are not necessarily relevant) to include designing other AIs to do any conceivable task, then the value of human work almost immediately becomes zero, other than work that is uniquely human in nature...and I don't know that any such work actually exists. Perhaps it might.

But in any case, it seems certainly that a human social, political, and economic foundation built on he basis of the value of human labor is going to need some significant adjustment.

[Berkut]

.....

Also, there is an interesting audience member. Pick them out at about 4:07 into the talk. I should go to more TED talks.

This was you, wasn't it? 

You are clearly NOT looking at the same audience member I was...

[HVC]

.....

Also, there is an interesting audience member. Pick them out at about 4:07 into the talk. I should go to more TED talks.

This was you, wasn't it? 

You are clearly NOT looking at the same audience member I was...

Nerd. Nerd. Nerd. BOOBS. Nerd. Nerd.

[The Brain]

Say that AI is a major problem. What's the solution?

[celedhring]

Simplifying: Intelligent AIs are unavoidable. Since all technology gets better with the passing of time, they will naturally get so much better than we'll become irrelevant.

It seems to me this falls under "in the long run we're all dead" file.

He also talks about how robotics and such will throw off the economic balance creating lots of unemployment and inequality. This has been discussed previously in here, and I believe that it won't happen. Previous technology revolutions have made lots of jobs redundant indeed, but at the end of the day we've put all that manpower towards more productive labors and lifted the levels of prosperity for everybody.

This is a fallacy. Simply because it has been the case that new technoloy has allowed people to do other things, it doesn't mean that there is an inexhaustible list of other things that need to be done, while there is certainly a finite list of human needs that must be met.

Basically, history has been a case where humans have been able to only do a small subset of the useful possible activities. So as we created technology to handle some activitites, it has freed up humans to engage in other more useful activities that they previously did not have time for. But it would be false to conclude that this is just something that is infinite - indeed, it seems pretty clear it is not.

And given AI that can literally do anything a human can do (which in and of itself is a difference in kind from what we have seen before, hence previous lessons are not necessarily relevant) to include designing other AIs to do any conceivable task, then the value of human work almost immediately becomes zero, other than work that is uniquely human in nature...and I don't know that any such work actually exists. Perhaps it might.

But in any case, it seems certainly that a human social, political, and economic foundation built on he basis of the value of human labor is going to need some significant adjustment.

I disagree. Technology, in fact, has enabled us to do many new things. The same computers that have left so many jobs redundant have created millions of new jobs related to them. From IT technicians to people conceptualizing, writing and programming all kinds of computer entertainment.

There's a pretty strong historical trend where labor is being pushed out from agriculture and manufacturing towards the various service sectors. And a myriad of new activities have been created there, and are created every passing year, by every new revolution that comes along. I can't see a nearby future where human labor is no longer needed or wanted. If, say, we live in a future where musicians are no longer needed because people like music created by computers, then we'll have a whole sector of people devoted to create the best algorithms to make that.

Yes, you can do like mr Harris and look so far in the future that you come up with machines that can take care of absolutely everything and learn to do everything. But imho, that's a sci-fi utopia (or dystopia, according to him). With the same rigor I can portend that we'll all go through thermonuclear war before that happens and be back to square one. All Doomsday scenarios become certain if you look far enough.

And for the "Singularity will happen in 2050!!!!" crowd out there. Moore's law is about brute processing power, but there's still a very hard ceiling on what computers can do. Yes, like he says a computer can out-think a whole room of MIT nerds, but this computer can only think about things these nerds tell him about. Software is still very limited by the capabilities of the human mind.

[Berkut]

.....

Also, there is an interesting audience member. Pick them out at about 4:07 into the talk. I should go to more TED talks.

This was you, wasn't it? 

You are clearly NOT looking at the same audience member I was...

Nerd. Nerd. Nerd. BOOBS. Nerd. Nerd.

Yep.

WTF is she wearing??? It is like a negligee top without a bra on under it - her entire right boob is pretty much hanging out.

And she is kind of hot as well. Red hait, pony tail, boobs falling out of top that leaves nothing to the imagination...

[The Minsky Moment]

There is an AI problem.  The problem is that it kind of sucks.  It's very good at highly stylized scenarios with limited options like chess, not so good on more complex tasks, especially with social implications.  Practically, I think we should be more focused and concerned about the present limitations of AI and the likelihood and speed of overcoming those limitations, than as yet hypothetical speculations about AIs that can replicate and exceed human intelligence across a broad range of activities.

If the super AI scenario did really occur, then Berkut may well be right that our past experience with the impact of technological development may be misleading.  Once you can replicate or exceed human intelligence, there really isn't any human function that can't be replaced other than simply the status of being a human and not a machine.  So our present labor-based economic system would be replaced by a new one.  But that assumes the super AI scenario and being able to fully replicate human intelligence.  Not clear that is feasible at least on any time scale of direct concern to anyone here.  Partial replacement of some tasks by automation, even really big ones with lots of employment, is not a development that differs in nature from similar episodes in the past.

[celedhring]

If the super AI scenario did really occur, then Berkut may well be right that our past experience with the impact of technological development may be misleading.  Once you can replicate or exceed human intelligence, there really isn't any human function that can't be replaced other than simply the status of being a human and not a machine.  So our present labor-based economic system would be replaced by a new one.  But that assumes the super AI scenario and being able to fully replicate human intelligence.  Not clear that is feasible at least on any time scale of direct concern to anyone here.  Partial replacement of some tasks by automation, even really big ones with lots of employment, is not a development that differs in nature from similar episodes in the past.

As usual, you express my thoughts better than I'm able to...