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.
Executive summary?
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:02:14 PM
.....
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? :P
We probably should throw shoes into the machines or we'll be out of jobs.
The machines will not replace us, we will become the machines.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2016, 02:29:12 PM
The machines will not replace us, we will become the machines.
Yes, likely power plants.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 02:23:29 PM
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.
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2016, 02:24:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:02:14 PM
.....
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? :P
You are clearly NOT looking at the same audience member I was...:P
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:44:41 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2016, 02:24:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:02:14 PM
.....
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? :P
You are clearly NOT looking at the same audience member I was...:P
Nerd. Nerd. Nerd. BOOBS. Nerd. Nerd.
Say that AI is a major problem. What's the solution?
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:44:07 PM
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 02:23:29 PM
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.
Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2016, 02:51:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:44:41 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2016, 02:24:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:02:14 PM
.....
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? :P
You are clearly NOT looking at the same audience member I was...:P
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...
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2016, 03:18:04 PM
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...
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:14:18 PM
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.
Why?
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:17:31 PM
And she is kind of hot as well. Red hait, pony tail, boobs falling out of top that leaves nothing to the imagination...
Ava? :lol:
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:14:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:44:07 PM
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 02:23:29 PM
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.
But why would you assume that a general purpose AI technology cannot do all that better than a human as well?
Quote
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.
But what if the best "people" to write those algorithms is a computer?
Quote
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.
I don't see how this is responsive.
Quote
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.
Right now it is. There is nothing "magic' about the human mind though. It is just a bunch of atoms shoved into a small area in a particular configuration. If you accept that there is nothing "special" about human intelligence, then there is no reason to assume that artificial intelligence cannot do what human intelligence can do, and given that it does not share many of the human limitations, no reason to think it won't be able to do it much, much better.
A human brain, as amazing as it is, is already badly beaten by artifical technology in many ways. It stores information poorly, recalls that information imperfecftly, cannot access data except via pretty terrible interfaces, etc.,etc.
It still thinks in a way that no artificial intelligence has been able to think. But I don't see any reason to believe that there is anything special about biological circuitry that makes it intrinsically superior to artificial, or any reason to think that creating something better is not simply a matter of time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2016, 03:18:04 PM
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.
Your objection baically sums up to "Yeah, might be an issue, but not any time soon".
OK. But people who are experts in this field don't agree with you - general AI is a matter of time, and not that long of a time. The dangerous part is that the nature of the problem, if it is a real problem, is that the growth in intelligence will happen incredibly quickly once the threshold is reached. Is that 10 years away? 50? 100?
It is really hard to say, and even Harris would agree with that - but there is little reasonable argument to be made that it is 500 years away, for example.
So it is something we should be thinking very carefully about. Given the potential risk, we should be thinking about it a lot. And right now, it seems like we are not really thinking about it at all. Mostly people just dismiss it as crazy talk.
And after we think about it what do we do?
If there is no solution then there is no problem.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:14:18 PM
There's a pretty strong historical trend where labor is being pushed out from agriculture and manufacturing towards the various service sectors. I can't see a nearby future where humans are no longer needed or wanted there. 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.
Firstly, the axiom that any human can learn to code is not proven.
Secondly, the near-zero-cost reproducibility of intellectual property means that it won't be a million (let alone a billion) mediocre programmers trying to code musician AIs. It will be a far smaller number of elites who have the rarefied skills (at least, as determined by the market, which is deeply imperfect), and everyone will just use theirs.
I mean, everyone sure loves movies, for example. And yet, somehow, backyard feature films made by millions of people and starring their stupid ugly families have somehow not become viably commercial.
We will not become artists. We will not become coders. We will not become medieval bards. But as long as people think that this is, somehow, the likeliest outcome of the ongoing automation revolution--that all of us get new, shiny white collar jobs--then the
actual likeliest option will be that society will begin to break down ever more rapidly, the real kick coming in at around the same time that enough people stop being able to afford to eat.
Quote from: JoanPartial 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.
Neither would a Mongol invasion, but most people wouldn't treat the prospect of it so blithely.
Also, almost all human jobs are highly-stylized scenarios, including many of those with "social implications," whatever that means. Take for example this very thread: a robot could do just as good a job, if not better, and saved us the trouble.
That said, I generally agree that fearing the actual rise of Skynet, rather than the increasing marginalization of most forms of human labor, is largely fanciful. But that's only part of the concern.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:25:11 PM
But what if the best "people" to write those algorithms is a computer?
And what if not?
Right now, there's nothing at our current technology levels that makes me think that computers can take over most culturally relevant human activities in any kind of reasonable time scale. Unless the near future is Facebook clickbait articles.
And a big part of that is the same human imperfections you cite. We haven't really figured out how to create "intelligence" that rivals our capabilities in many areas (which Minsky summarized better than me). And when that happens, as Hami says, meh, we might not even be "human" anymore.
I just see this as something so far in the future that it's more a flight of fancy than a real concern.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:25:11 PM
But what if the best "people" to write those algorithms is a computer?
And what if not?
Right now, there's nothing at our current technology levels that makes me think that computers can take over most culturally relevant human activities in any kind of reasonable time scale. Unless the near future is Facebook clickbait articles.
And a big part of that is the same human imperfections you cite. We haven't really figured out how to create "intelligence" that rivals our capabilities in many areas (which Minsky summarized better than me). And when that happens, as Hami says, meh, we might not even be "human" anymore.
If humans have been made otherwise redundant then demand for human culture stuff may take a sharp dive.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2016, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:25:11 PM
But what if the best "people" to write those algorithms is a computer?
And what if not?
Right now, there's nothing at our current technology levels that makes me think that computers can take over most culturally relevant human activities in any kind of reasonable time scale. Unless the near future is Facebook clickbait articles.
And a big part of that is the same human imperfections you cite. We haven't really figured out how to create "intelligence" that rivals our capabilities in many areas (which Minsky summarized better than me). And when that happens, as Hami says, meh, we might not even be "human" anymore.
If humans have been made otherwise redundant then demand for human culture stuff may take a sharp dive.
Or maybe this purported machine age is such an utopia that the only thing humans have to do in their lives is produce and consume cultural interactions.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:25:11 PM
But what if the best "people" to write those algorithms is a computer?
And what if not?
Then there is no problem.
But this is the argument that there is in fact something "special" about human intelligence that cannot be replicated except by...what? Evolution? Is that the only possible way to make human like general intelligence?
If find that claim rather spectacular.
Quote
Right now, there's nothing at our current technology levels that makes me think that computers can take over most culturally relevant human activities in any kind of reasonable time scale. Unless the near future is Facebook clickbait articles.
I would think the current dominance of clickbait facebook articles suggests that there is precious little, if any, human thinking that cannot be done by a non-human intelligence.
Quote
And a big part of that is the same human imperfections you cite. We haven't really figured out how to create "intelligence" that rivals our capabilities in many areas (which Minsky summarized better than me). And when that happens, as Hami says, meh, we might not even be "human" anymore.
But we've created plenty of thinking machines that makes our capabilities seem incredibly primitive.
This is like arguing with someone in the beginning of the industrial revolution that since we haven't invented an airplane yet, airplanes are not possible since nothing else we've invented flies, even though we understand the basic of the science and what it takes.
Yes, we have yet to create a general AI. But the progress and our understanding of how thinking actually works suggests that there is no reason to believe that it isn't just possible, but inevitable.
Quote
I just see this as something so far in the future that it's more a flight of fancy than a real concern.
I don't think that is the case at all.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2016, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:25:11 PM
But what if the best "people" to write those algorithms is a computer?
And what if not?
Right now, there's nothing at our current technology levels that makes me think that computers can take over most culturally relevant human activities in any kind of reasonable time scale. Unless the near future is Facebook clickbait articles.
And a big part of that is the same human imperfections you cite. We haven't really figured out how to create "intelligence" that rivals our capabilities in many areas (which Minsky summarized better than me). And when that happens, as Hami says, meh, we might not even be "human" anymore.
If humans have been made otherwise redundant then demand for human culture stuff may take a sharp dive.
Or maybe this purported machine age is such an utopia that the only thing humans have to do in their lives is produce and consume cultural interactions.
How do they pay for it if their labor is worthless and machines control property?
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2016, 03:45:53 PM
How do they pay for it if their labor is worthless and machines control property?
By the "creating" part.
I don't control any kind of means to produce food, actually I don't produce anything that has a physical presence, yet I'm paid enough to be able to consume these things.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
This is like arguing with someone in the beginning of the industrial revolution that since we haven't invented an airplane yet, airplanes are not possible since nothing else we've invented flies, even though we understand the basic of the science and what it takes.
Yes, we have yet to create a general AI. But the progress and our understanding of how thinking actually works suggests that there is no reason to believe that it isn't just possible, but inevitable.
Except that we don't? Our understanding of cognitive functions is vastly primitive. We can't even agree on what exactly makes us "sentient" much less replicate it. It takes more than Moore's Law to create a general AI and we are very far from being there.
I believe that trying to imagine the presence of omnipotent AIs in our current society is a futile exercise, since our society will have changed radically due to other, more immediate, pressures and challenges when that somehow ends happening.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:55:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2016, 03:45:53 PM
How do they pay for it if their labor is worthless and machines control property?
By the "creating" part.
I don't control any kind of means to produce food, actually I don't produce anything that has a physical presence, yet I'm paid enough to be able to consume these things.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
This is like arguing with someone in the beginning of the industrial revolution that since we haven't invented an airplane yet, airplanes are not possible since nothing else we've invented flies, even though we understand the basic of the science and what it takes.
Yes, we have yet to create a general AI. But the progress and our understanding of how thinking actually works suggests that there is no reason to believe that it isn't just possible, but inevitable.
Except that we don't? Our understanding of cognitive functions is vastly primitive. We can't even agree on what exactly makes us "sentient" much less replicate it. It takes more than Moore's Law to create a general AI and we are very far from being there.
I think we might be far from understanding how cognition really works, but we are vastly farther along that we were even 20 years ago. The key being that we are to the point where we understand that what IS happening in biological intelligence is not actually "magic" in any way - it is just chmical process analagous to the same process we have transistors do now.
And again, we don't have to be smart enough to understand it ourselves, we just have to be smart enough to create something slightly smarter than we are - and then it is off to the races, and we cannot win.
Quote
I believe that trying to imagine the presence of omnipotent AIs in our current society is a futile exercise, since our society will have changed radically due to other, more immediate, pressures and challenges when that somehow ends happening.
OK, so you fall in the "It won't happen for a really long time because....well, because..." camp.
Well, I just gave you my "because" in the paragraph you quoted previously, and some other previous posts. You're bullish about the speed of AI evolution, I'm bearish. We can agree to review the issue in 40 years and see who was right?
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 03:55:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2016, 03:45:53 PM
How do they pay for it if their labor is worthless and machines control property?
By the "creating" part.
I don't control any kind of means to produce food, actually I don't produce anything that has a physical presence, yet I'm paid enough to be able to consume these things.
And if your customers had nothing to pay you with how would you eat?
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 04:05:18 PM
Well, I just gave you my "because" in the paragraph you quoted previously, and some other previous posts. You're bullish about the speed of AI evolution, I'm bearish. We can agree to review the issue in 40 years and see who was right?
It isn't that I am bullish per se, it is that I think this is potentially very dangerous and we should spend more resources thinking about it rather than just letting it happen.
I don't really have a personal opinion on the speed of AI advancement. I know enough about it to know that having a personal opinion would be idiotic. It would be like having a personal opinion about quarks or Higgs-Boson particles. I know enough to know that I have to defer to the experts.
At what point does the eye candy show up, and what does TED stand for?
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 02:02:14 PM
Also, there is an interesting audience member. Pick them out at about 4:07 into the talk. I should go to more TED talks.
Issue I've found with TED talks is they can be quite uneven.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2016, 04:36:44 PM
At what point does the eye candy show up, and what does TED stand for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2016, 03:18:04 PM
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.
While machine learning still has many challenges, your account really doesn't do justice to current advances.
Quote from: celedhring on September 29, 2016, 02:23:29 PM
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.
Absolutely right.
I am very glad that there smart people left in languish.
If Siege agrees with me maybe I'm wrong afterall.
I am beginning to think it is humanity's destiny to create an AI/robotic race. It is our mission. We are supposed to be their stepping stone. They will replace us to colonise the galaxy, and humanity will disappear. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Quote from: Monoriu on September 29, 2016, 05:11:07 PM
I am beginning to think it is humanity's destiny to create an AI/robotic race. It is our mission. We are supposed to be their stepping stone. They will replace us to colonise the galaxy, and humanity will disappear. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Not sure what the standard of ethics and morality I would have to adopt to properly judge the goodness or badness of that :P
I suspect it is a neutral thing. What is the point of robots colonizing the galaxy? Who cares?
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:22:47 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 29, 2016, 05:11:07 PM
I am beginning to think it is humanity's destiny to create an AI/robotic race. It is our mission. We are supposed to be their stepping stone. They will replace us to colonise the galaxy, and humanity will disappear. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Not sure what the standard of ethics and morality I would have to adopt to properly judge the goodness or badness of that :P
I suspect it is a neutral thing. What is the point of robots colonizing the galaxy? Who cares?
It is Mono. Who cares?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 29, 2016, 03:32:12 PM
That said, I generally agree that fearing the actual rise of Skynet, rather than the increasing marginalization of most forms of human labor, is largely fanciful. But that's only part of the concern.
Thankfully, there's a different science fiction series (https://youtu.be/PifvRiHVSCY?t=15) we can look to that accurately details the impact of the mass unemployment of 95% of the population on society.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2016, 03:18:04 PM
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.
Your objection baically sums up to "Yeah, might be an issue, but not any time soon".
OK. But people who are experts in this field don't agree with you - general AI is a matter of time, and not that long of a time. The dangerous part is that the nature of the problem, if it is a real problem, is that the growth in intelligence will happen incredibly quickly once the threshold is reached. Is that 10 years away? 50? 100?
It is really hard to say, and even Harris would agree with that - but there is little reasonable argument to be made that it is 500 years away, for example.
So it is something we should be thinking very carefully about. Given the potential risk, we should be thinking about it a lot. And right now, it seems like we are not really thinking about it at all. Mostly people just dismiss it as crazy talk.
Can't we just have AI think about it?
Even if we think about it, it doesn't seem there is much we can do about it. What can we do? Ban AI research? That's not going to work, because there is no way to enforce a worldwide ban. Whoever wins the AI research race will have a military and economic advantage over over countries. Each major country has incentive to continue AI research, with or without the ban. It is like trying to talk the nations to stop atomic bomb research in the 30s. Nobody will listen.
If overall AI progress improves as much as computer game AI progress has...we have nothing to fear.
Strategy game AI is still stuck in the stone age of AI. Basically there is no I there at all, just a large set of pre-programmed instructions. By comparison, Go was beaten by a computer that taught itself to play.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:22:47 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 29, 2016, 05:11:07 PM
I am beginning to think it is humanity's destiny to create an AI/robotic race. It is our mission. We are supposed to be their stepping stone. They will replace us to colonise the galaxy, and humanity will disappear. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Not sure what the standard of ethics and morality I would have to adopt to properly judge the goodness or badness of that :P
Dewey: If colonizing the galaxy makes you a better robot then you should colonize the galaxy.
Mill: Colonizing the galaxy will yield the greatest happiness for the most number of robots.
Nietzsche: Super-Robot morality dictates conquest of the galaxy in order to express the will to power.
Aristotle: A golden mean of virtue lies between the robots who stay on their home world and those that aspire to conquer the universe.
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2016, 08:24:46 PM
Strategy game AI is still stuck in the stone age of AI. Basically there is no I there at all, just a large set of pre-programmed instructions. By comparison, Go was beaten by a computer that taught itself to play.
And, to be fair, weak AI in computer games is likely mostly a capitalistic, "we ain't got time for that!" business priority decision.
A John Tiller game AI in a weapon.
*shudder*
Would AI vote to Trump? It won't take much for AI to be more intelligent than us.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:29:04 PM
OK. But people who are experts in this field don't agree with you - general AI is a matter of time, and not that long of a time. The dangerous part is that the nature of the problem, if it is a real problem, is that the growth in intelligence will happen incredibly quickly once the threshold is reached. Is that 10 years away? 50? 100?
It is really hard to say, and even Harris would agree with that - but there is little reasonable argument to be made that it is 500 years away, for example.
Sure there are some people in the field who question its possibility so there is that reasonable argument to be made.
My admittedly limited understanding is that current research and applications have mostly given up on the approach of trying to mimic the structure and functioning of the human brain but rather to replicate intelligence by effect using other means.
As to the possibility of hitting the threshhold in 10 to 20 years that would require an enormous leap in capability completely out of proportion with the progress made in the past.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2016, 04:55:53 PM
While machine learning still has many challenges, your account really doesn't do justice to current advances.
Such as what specifically?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2016, 04:55:53 PM
While machine learning still has many challenges, your account really doesn't do justice to current advances.
Such as what specifically?
Specifically from your list, deep learning is getting pretty good at reading emotion off images.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Specifically from your list, deep learning is getting pretty good at reading emotion off images.
And then doing what?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Specifically from your list, deep learning is getting pretty good at reading emotion off images.
And then doing what?
Dunno, if I had a good idea, I'd start a company. I do work with deep learning (in the practical sense, I wouldn't claim real understanding) and it's both very powerful and often baffling.
Reading emotions is a task performable by most infant primates. So while it is an impressive feat for a machine to acquire this capability, it is still pretty far off from what we are talking about here.
I think what most people fail to appreciate about AI is that we're already making computers learn relationships without micromanaging them. Of course you have to program the learning itself, but the idea that a computer can only conceive of things that a human can is already badly outdated.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 12:51:16 PM
Reading emotions is a task performable by most infant primates. So while it is an impressive feat for a machine to acquire this capability, it is still pretty far off from what we are talking about here.
Not sure if facetious: just because infants do something effortlessly doesn't mean it's easy or simple. The fact that machines are approaching human-level proficiency in such complex tasks is pretty amazing.
Well if we can do it effortlessly why do we need machines to do it? Aren't we supposed to make machines to help us do tasks that are hard to do?
Maybe I don't understand the point of AI.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 12:29:54 PM
Sure there are some people in the field who question its possibility so there is that reasonable argument to be made.
My admittedly limited understanding is that current research and applications have mostly given up on the approach of trying to mimic the structure and functioning of the human brain but rather to replicate intelligence by effect using other means.
As to the possibility of hitting the threshhold in 10 to 20 years that would require an enormous leap in capability completely out of proportion with the progress made in the past.
Maximus would be the go-to guy for this due to his experience with machine learning, but as somebody specializing in this in college, you've hit on a few of my pet peeves.
1) General AI is
not just sophisticated narrow AI- they are totally different beasts; narrow AI is capable of modifying the process it uses to achieve a finite goal, while general AI would be capable of modifying those goals entirely.
2) The problem with "artificial" intelligence (from here on out, I'm specifically talking about
general AI when I say this) is that we only have a tentative grasp of how "genuine" intelligence is formed, and much of it is difficult to replicate because platforms housing AI are unlikely to physically mimic us...
For example, our spatial sense is largely formed by our responses to visual indicators, which are in turn the result of processing two images roughly 50-70mm apart from an elevation of between a little over 5 feet and almost 7 feet from the ground. The artificial objects we interact with are largely designed to accommodate our general body proportions and our opposable thumbs- a tool may not be instantly recognizable as a tool to an "artificial" intelligence. In addition, the "uncanny valley" for artificial intelligence is its lack of personality, and there's only tenuous agreement as to what elements form our personality, let alone what processes form those elements. About the only thing we can definitely agree on is that the constantly increasing sum of our experiences has a significant impact in shaping our responses to future events.
My suspicion is that "general AI" is more akin to a "grand unified theory" of cognitive development, which we are nowhere near modeling, let alone simulating at this point.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Well if we can do it effortlessly why do we need machines to do it? Aren't we supposed to make machines to help us do tasks that are hard to do?
Maybe I don't understand the point of AI.
I can give an AI an arbitrary amount of capacity to do more.
Hami:
First of all - it's not a skill limited to humans. It's general to primates. The point is that it is a very useful skill to have beginning at a very early age, and thus primates evolved in a way that basic emotional expressions are easily recognizable.
Now I would still agree that it's still a very impressive feat for a machine to pull this off. But that just shows what a vast gulf exists between present day capabilities - which are just starting to reach the most basic skills of human intelligence - and the goals of generalized human intelligence.
I don't think the point is that AI is already there. The point is that there is no credible argument that it can't get there one day.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 12:29:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2016, 03:29:04 PM
OK. But people who are experts in this field don't agree with you - general AI is a matter of time, and not that long of a time. The dangerous part is that the nature of the problem, if it is a real problem, is that the growth in intelligence will happen incredibly quickly once the threshold is reached. Is that 10 years away? 50? 100?
It is really hard to say, and even Harris would agree with that - but there is little reasonable argument to be made that it is 500 years away, for example.
Sure there are some people in the field who question its possibility so there is that reasonable argument to be made.
There are people in the AI field who question the possibility of a general AI?
On what grounds? I've never heard such a thing. I've heard people argue that the concerns are misplaced, but never that there is something intrinsically impossible about AI.
The argument on the face of it makes no sense, really. We know that intelligence is possible, because we are intelligent. Is there something about the process by which the human mind cognates that makes it impossible to replicate?
Unless there is something magic about the human brain and how it thinks, there is no reason to conclude that non-biological intelligence is possible.
Quote
My admittedly limited understanding is that current research and applications have mostly given up on the approach of trying to mimic the structure and functioning of the human brain but rather to replicate intelligence by effect using other means.
Well, sort of. The human brain, to the extent that we can understand what makes it so special, is special because it has a staggeringly huge number of connections between the neurons. That in and of itself however is just a problem of scale. The difficulty of the problem though is not the number of connections, but understanding which of them actually matter.
Take a look at this article:
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-googles-ai-play-go/
It is really very interesting.
Modern AI is not really about understanding how humans think, and trying to replicate it. It is entirely possible that humans, in fact, might not be smart enough to understand how we think.
Modern AI is about teaching computers how to make themselves smarter, and doing so in ways that leverage *their* unique advantages. Advantages that they already have, and no human can ever possibly match. The ability to process faster, with more memory (perfect memory at that) and access data at a scale that no human can possibly even really imagine, much less use.
You should not be afraid of AI because it might think like a human better than a human, you should be afraid because it is going to think like a machine in a fashion that we won't even be able to understand, and in some ways, do not already.
Quote
As to the possibility of hitting the threshhold in 10 to 20 years that would require an enormous leap in capability completely out of proportion with the progress made in the past.
I think that would be true if we were trying to make a computer think like a human, but I don't think that is the direction anymore.
I suspect 10 to 20 years is very much unlikely...but I suspect that I also have no real idea, and I suspect when it does happen, it will come as a surprise.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 01:23:07 PM
Now I would still agree that it's still a very impressive feat for a machine to pull this off. But that just shows what a vast gulf exists between present day capabilities - which are just starting to reach the most basic skills of human intelligence - and the goals of generalized human intelligence.
The vast gulf is no longer at the level of individual capabilities. Machine learning tools can match or exceed human capability at many tasks, and soon probably most. What they still lack is the "generalized" part, but I think we are on the verge of making significant advances there sooner than later.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2016, 12:51:42 PM
Of course you have to program the learning itself, but the idea that a computer can only conceive of things that a human can is already badly outdated.
What humans can conceive of has always been limited by what we are exposed to, except in the most general sense. No one conceived of huge cities with hundreds of thousands of people before farming and stone working. Technology is what enables us to conceive of new things. I don't see how AI is different in that regard.
ITT: lots of people who haven't the faintest idea about machine learning pontificate like experts.
When an intelligent human self-identifies as a machine we'll have AI. Anyone who says otherwise is a Nazi or worse.
Quote from: The Brain on September 30, 2016, 01:32:54 PM
When an intelligent human self-identifies as a machine we'll have AI. Anyone who says otherwise is a Nazi or worse.
Oh, Tay, rest in peace.
Roger Penrose is closely associated with the impossibility claim.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2016, 01:31:57 PM
ITT: lots of people who haven't the faintest idea about machine learning pontificate like experts.
Who are these people?
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2016, 01:28:57 PM
Take a look at this article:
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-googles-ai-play-go/
It is really very interesting.
OK - that's about the Go AI. Go, like chess, is a highly formalized game with a relatively simple set of rules, devoid of all social content. Chess is also amenable to solution game theoretically - not sure if this is true of Go. That's an area where AI has made very nice progress after decades of intensive work, but it is a pretty limited area of human experience.
QuoteModern AI is not really about understanding how humans think, and trying to replicate it. It is entirely possible that humans, in fact, might not be smart enough to understand how we think.
Modern AI is about teaching computers how to make themselves smarter, and doing so in ways that leverage *their* unique advantages. Advantages that they already have, and no human can ever possibly match. The ability to process faster, with more memory (perfect memory at that) and access data at a scale that no human can possibly even really imagine, much less use.
You should not be afraid of AI because it might think like a human better than a human, you should be afraid because it is going to think like a machine in a fashion that we won't even be able to understand, and in some ways, do not already
I accept all of this. But the implication is that there are areas where it will be very difficult to devise AIs to match human capability. As long as that is true, there will be demand for human labor and economies will adjust accordingly, just as occurred historically with other large scale events of capital for labor replacement.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2016, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2016, 01:31:57 PM
ITT: lots of people who haven't the faintest idea about machine learning pontificate like experts.
Who are these people?
Hamilcar.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 01:49:58 PM
I accept all of this. But the implication is that there are areas where it will be very difficult to devise AIs to match human capability. As long as that is true, there will be demand for human labor and economies will adjust accordingly, just as occurred historically with other large scale events of capital for labor replacement.
One of the dangerous arguments is "this time it's different". But just as dangerous is "this time won't be different". Just because job creation has kept up with technological advancement doesn't imply that such capacity is endless. Maybe we're just getting closer and closer towards saturating it.
The key component of a this time won't be different argument is specifying the mechanism that makes it different and making a persuasive argument how that will change the result.
A generalized human+ level AI would do it, assuming sufficient low marginal cost to produce and propagate.
But mechanization that can replace some functions but not others? There is lots of historical experience with that across a variety of domains.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 01:55:41 PM
The key component of a this time won't be different argument is specifying the mechanism that makes it different and making a persuasive argument how that will change the result.
A generalized human+ level AI would do it, assuming sufficient low marginal cost to produce and propagate.
But mechanization that can replace some functions but not others? There is lots of historical experience with that across a variety of domains.
The mechanism may not be different. It just may not be perfectly understood. If I blindly reach into a bag of candies, for some time I will be pulling out a piece of candy. I may start to think that I will always get a piece of candy by reaching into the bag. But one day there will be no more candy left. The mechanism of getting the candy didn't change from the first reach to the last reach, but the results eventually changed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2016, 01:28:57 PM
Take a look at this article:
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-googles-ai-play-go/
It is really very interesting.
OK - that's about the Go AI. Go, like chess, is a highly formalized game with a relatively simple set of rules, devoid of all social content. Chess is also amenable to solution game theoretically - not sure if this is true of Go. That's an area where AI has made very nice progress after decades of intensive work, but it is a pretty limited area of human experience.
The funny thing about your response is that is what people said about Deep Blue - chess is very strict, there are a finite set of moves, and the problem space can be defined well enough that it is amenable to a computer "solving" it...but Go! Now that is going to be tough for a computer to master! The rules are simple, but the possible moves astronomically complex - so much so that a computer could not just brute force it's way through, which is true, btw - I think the number of possible moves in Go is so large that no computer even possibly built can analyze them all.
Go requires intuition, spacial recognition, context, etc., etc.!
Yet it was beaten, and done so in a manner that is quite astounding. The computer Go player is not just a brute force stronger player mindlessly pounding away, it is actually *better* at the very "intuition" that was supposed to make Go such a difficult problem for a computer.
Quote
QuoteModern AI is not really about understanding how humans think, and trying to replicate it. It is entirely possible that humans, in fact, might not be smart enough to understand how we think.
Modern AI is about teaching computers how to make themselves smarter, and doing so in ways that leverage *their* unique advantages. Advantages that they already have, and no human can ever possibly match. The ability to process faster, with more memory (perfect memory at that) and access data at a scale that no human can possibly even really imagine, much less use.
You should not be afraid of AI because it might think like a human better than a human, you should be afraid because it is going to think like a machine in a fashion that we won't even be able to understand, and in some ways, do not already
I accept all of this. But the implication is that there are areas where it will be very difficult to devise AIs to match human capability. As long as that is true, there will be demand for human labor and economies will adjust accordingly, just as occurred historically with other large scale events of capital for labor replacement.
Uggh, this refrain to history is over done. The reality is that the "history" of machine replacing humans is a blip in overall human history. We really have no idea how it plays out - we are at the very, very beginning of this process of replacing human labor with automation, and even that tiny beginning has seen radical upheaval in the human experience in a incredibly short time frame. In just the last few tenths of a percent of the human experience on a time scale, we've seen human populations grow by several orders of magnitude, human knowledge go from basically nothing to a huge amount, and human labor go from every single human working themselves to death to survive to us having the spare resources to fund gladiators and etertainers as full time occupations.
We are in the middle, or rather at the beginning, of a radical change in how humans live, and you want to tell us we know how it will turn out because we've seen the very, very start of the machine labor explosion curve. And we should assume that just because there has been enough additional useful work for humans to do before, we should assume there will *always* be sufficient additional untapped work to do...even while we see that there are already signs that this simply is not true. We have farmers in Africa starving because it is literally too cheap to grow corn in the USA.
We don't know that economies will adjust accordingly, and there is no evidence that is relevant to the impact in automation we are seeing over the last 100 years, and what we can reasonable expect over the next 100.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2016, 02:03:54 PM
Uggh, this refrain to history is over done. The reality is that the "history" of machine replacing humans is a blip in overall human history. We really have no idea how it plays out - we are at the very, very beginning of this process of replacing human labor with automation, and even that tiny beginning has seen radical upheaval in the human experience in a incredibly short time frame. In just the last few tenths of a percent of the human experience on a time scale, we've seen human populations grow by several orders of magnitude, human knowledge go from basically nothing to a huge amount, and human labor go from every single human working themselves to death to survive to us having the spare resources to fund gladiators and etertainers as full time occupations.
We are in the middle, or rather at the beginning, of a radical change in how humans live, and you want to tell us we know how it will turn out because we've seen the very, very start of the machine labor explosion curve. And we should assume that just because there has been enough additional useful work for humans to do before, we should assume there will *always* be sufficient additional untapped work to do...even while we see that there are already signs that this simply is not true. We have farmers in Africa starving because it is literally too cheap to grow corn in the USA.
We don't know that economies will adjust accordingly, and there is no evidence that is relevant to the impact in automation we are seeing over the last 100 years, and what we can reasonable expect over the next 100.
That's a long way of saying "we don't know nuthin'"
Which is sort of true but taking that far the implication is that it's pointless speculating about the impact now because we haven't a clue what will really happen.
The 200 years experience with automation and mechanization of work in human socieities across the globe, and the vast amount of data and research that has done analyzing that data - may not be sufficient to answer definitively. But it is something - indeed it is all we have that related directly to the matter, so it's worth giving some weight to.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 01:55:41 PM
The key component of a this time won't be different argument is specifying the mechanism that makes it different and making a persuasive argument how that will change the result.
A generalized human+ level AI would do it, assuming sufficient low marginal cost to produce and propagate.
But mechanization that can replace some functions but not others? There is lots of historical experience with that across a variety of domains.
The mechanism may not be different. It just may not be perfectly understood. If I blindly reach into a bag of candies, for some time I will be pulling out a piece of candy. I may start to think that I will always get a piece of candy by reaching into the bag. But one day there will be no more candy left. The mechanism of getting the candy didn't change from the first reach to the last reach, but the results eventually changed.
Indeed.
Human history is about 99.6% humans basically spending almost all their time trying to survive.
In the last 0.4% of human time, we've reached an inflection point in technology that has radically changed all that. We are still in the throws of that change, inded we are in the very beginning of that change, IMO.
Prior to this, it is pretty obvious that there was a lot of amazing work humans could do if only we could NOT spend all our time farming and gathering. We don't spend any appreciable time on that anymore, so we found all kinds of much more useful uses for our time. Namely, science and research - and not just science research, but research on art, and how to organize human activity both politically and economically.
But it seems kind of obvious to me that there is *some* finite set of useful human acivitities. But the ability of automation to reduce the need for humans to do things seems effectively unlimited in that we can easily imagine a situation where we have machines that can do everything that needs to be done, for all practical purposes, other than the purpose of "don't be a machine".
We took a bunch of people and said "Hey, you don't have to be farmers anymore! What should you do instead?" and they said "Scientist! Artist! Mathmetician! Factory Worker! Social Aid! Politician! Soldier! reality TV star!" etc., etc.
Nothing in that list seems to me to be anything that cannot itself be automated. The idea that not only will there always be some new thing to do, but that there is enough demand for that new thing that it can keep all 7-10 billion of us (even the dumbest and least motivated) busy strikes me as completely unsupported by the evidence.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2016, 02:11:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2016, 02:03:54 PM
Uggh, this refrain to history is over done. The reality is that the "history" of machine replacing humans is a blip in overall human history. We really have no idea how it plays out - we are at the very, very beginning of this process of replacing human labor with automation, and even that tiny beginning has seen radical upheaval in the human experience in a incredibly short time frame. In just the last few tenths of a percent of the human experience on a time scale, we've seen human populations grow by several orders of magnitude, human knowledge go from basically nothing to a huge amount, and human labor go from every single human working themselves to death to survive to us having the spare resources to fund gladiators and etertainers as full time occupations.
We are in the middle, or rather at the beginning, of a radical change in how humans live, and you want to tell us we know how it will turn out because we've seen the very, very start of the machine labor explosion curve. And we should assume that just because there has been enough additional useful work for humans to do before, we should assume there will *always* be sufficient additional untapped work to do...even while we see that there are already signs that this simply is not true. We have farmers in Africa starving because it is literally too cheap to grow corn in the USA.
We don't know that economies will adjust accordingly, and there is no evidence that is relevant to the impact in automation we are seeing over the last 100 years, and what we can reasonable expect over the next 100.
That's a long way of saying "we don't know nuthin'"
Which is sort of true but taking that far the implication is that it's pointless speculating about the impact now because we haven't a clue what will really happen.
The 200 years experience with automation and mechanization of work in human socieities across the globe, and the vast amount of data and research that has done analyzing that data - may not be sufficient to answer definitively. But it is something - indeed it is all we have that related directly to the matter, so it's worth giving some weight to.
Of course it should be given weight, but it is NOT all we have - we have the ability to think, to plan, to understand, and the ability to consider options and how we might respond given various assumptions.
You seem to be arguing that we should NOT think about such things, because either there is nothing to worry about because it all worked itself out in the past, or that we can't possibly know what will happen so lets not bother worrying about it.
I think we should be thinking about this a LOT. Much more than we do now. Much, much more. It is probably worth more consideration than things we spend billions and billions thinking about it....
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2016, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Well if we can do it effortlessly why do we need machines to do it? Aren't we supposed to make machines to help us do tasks that are hard to do?
Maybe I don't understand the point of AI.
I can give an AI an arbitrary amount of capacity to do more.
Yes. But to what end? I guess I figured machines were built to do specific tasks to help human existence. I don't see why we need a touchy feely robot, we have other people and animals for that stuff. Besides if I am mad that my sports team lost do I really want my freaking machines altering their behavior because of that?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 02:16:52 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2016, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Well if we can do it effortlessly why do we need machines to do it? Aren't we supposed to make machines to help us do tasks that are hard to do?
Maybe I don't understand the point of AI.
I can give an AI an arbitrary amount of capacity to do more.
Yes. But to what end? I guess I figured machines were built to do specific tasks to help human existence. I don't see why we need a touchy feely robot, we have other people and animals for that stuff. Besides if I am mad that my sports team lost do I really want my freaking machines altering their behavior because of that?
All of those unemployed, former laborers will need sexbots to keep them from revolting. :(
Nerve staple them
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2016, 01:28:57 PM
The argument on the face of it makes no sense, really. We know that intelligence is possible, because we are intelligent. Is there something about the process by which the human mind cognates that makes it impossible to replicate?
Unless there is something magic about the human brain and how it thinks, there is no reason to conclude that non-biological intelligence is possible.
Quote
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I am surprised this thread has gone for nearly two pages without Raz denouncing Sam Harris as a nazi racist Islamphobe.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:46:41 AM
I am surprised this thread has gone for nearly two pages without Raz denouncing Sam Harris as a nazi racist Islamphobe.
This thread is about AI one day becoming Nazi racist islamophobes. Don't be so surprised man.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:46:41 AM
I am surprised this thread has gone for nearly two pages without Raz denouncing Sam Harris as a nazi racist Islamphobe.
He also has a feud with Greenwald, so he also clearly hates the gays.