Will self-aware AI be the end of us?

Homepage Forums Science Will self-aware AI be the end of us?

This topic contains 40 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 2 weeks, 1 day ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33896

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    You wrote:

    I will reiterate that basic problem every programmer knows and dreads: computers do what you tell them to do not what you thought you were telling them to do.

    In this case, the problem is actually operator error, not the computer’s error.  The operator should make sure that what is wanted is expressed with precision so that the computer executes the desired effect.

    Also, if humans are still the ones telling the computer what to do and the computer is still the one doing it to instructions, then what is involved here is not an independent AI.

    As with Issac Asimov–(Hey! That’s almost a palindrome clause!)– I do not fear computers.  I fear the lack of them.

     

    #33897

    Unseen
    Participant

    In this case, the problem is actually operator error, not the computer’s error.  The operator should make sure that what is wanted is expressed with precision so that the computer executes the desired effect.

    Woulda, shoulda, coulda, are bricks on the road to doom.

    #33898

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    Jakelafort wrote:

    Unseen, as to your most recent scribbles I am in agreement. However we humans have given no indication we are capable of retarding or halting the advancement of tech. The experts i read/listened to opine that super intelligence is within a generation and at its genesis will be a gazillion power of magnitude greater than the human brain and that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

    Jake is absolutely correct here.  Thomas Paine once observed that once men know the truth, you cannot make them un-know the truth, and it is just as true with the knowledge of how to make AI.

    Banning AI would be just as futile as banning Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) weapons on the global stage or firearms and pharmaceuticals on our own streets. A ban only gives a monopoly of the technology to the worst among us.

    The best we can do is forbid certain relationships between technology and humans and enforce it ruthlessly.  Humans who make and use AI to provide for their fellow humans should be praised to the skies.  Humans who make and use AI to victimize, enslave, and destroy humans and their creations should be treated like Ma Barker and her spawn.

    Further it is my opinion that none of us can make an educated guess whether super intelligence AI will be indifferent, baleful, or kindly disposed towards us.

    It is my guess that consciousness that arises over billions of years biologically is always impure with an unhealthy admixture of conscious and unconscious processes.

    As the Aussies say: “Too right!”

    #33900

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    It isn’t just paranoid looney-tunes who are warning us about AI, it’s some of our best and most creative thinkers.

    Hmm yeah I expected Pinker to give the optimistic “it won’t necessarily naturally evolve” badly for us [paraphrase]. Thing is, all AI won’t be designed or owned by the same people, so there will be “variation in the species” built into AI, and how can we possibly trust all designers and owners to be benevolent or prudent? But I do agree with him that women have much more of the right kind of intelligence, to be more benevolent. 🙂

    As for the video that follows the Big Think video, this points out how we also need to trust designers and owners to test their products and prove how safe they’ll be. (Like a new drug?) When people have such a hard time understanding the threats and possible solutions to pandemics, I think they’ll have even a harder time dealing with a worldwide explosion in AIs [yes, plural].

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: chg "vaccine" to "new drug". note that i'd normally not log this kind of tiny chg, but activity here is heavy right now
    #33903

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    “Woulda, shoulda, coulda” applies to past mistaken paths, but “Will, Ought, and Can” applies now, and are gold bricks on a path to The Land of Oz, where we learn that what we want and need can be within us all along.

    As long as we don’t let the Poppies, Marching Winkies, and Flying Monkeys hold us back, we can have it good.

    #33904

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, “Woulda, shoulda, coulda” applies to past mistaken paths, but “Will, Ought, and Can” applies now, and are gold bricks on a path to The Land of Oz, where we learn that what we want and need can be within us all along. As long as we don’t let the Poppies, Marching Winkies, and Flying Monkeys hold us back, we can have it good.

    I wish I could share your optimism. I can’t.

    #33906

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    Oh, and don’t forget The Lollypop Guild that featherbeds and overprices all the work and Talking Trees that self-forbid the fruit of knowledge. 🙂

    #33910

    Glen D
    Participant

    The end of “us”?

    At 70-ish, unlikely AI will ever have any noticeable effect on me. As for say a person born today? I have no idea and lack the technical knowledge for an informed opinion.

    Seems there’s an assumption that sentience for AI is inevitable.  Not convinced that is the case.  However, I’m most interested in learning the basis for such an assumption.   Also the basis for any assumption about its ‘human’ qualities/morality. Be nice to think Asimov’s  Three Laws of Robotics would be built in, but  I have no reason for such an assumption.

    I’m more concerned with cloning. Now I can’t prove this, I’m extrapolating from the cloning of a sheep in 1996.. It is my understanding that human cloning is possible but banned. If that’s the case, it’s almost certain that someone is cloning people. I don’t just mean counties such as the PRC. I mean countries such as the US and various European countries which have the resources.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Glen D.
    #33915

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Seems there’s an assumption that sentience for AI is inevitable.  No convinced that is the case.  However, I’m most interested in learning the basis for such an assumption.

    Same here, at east for a while. Meanwhile AI could “appear” to be sentient, and be sold to buyers as such. And then the inevitable R&D on trying to duplicate it for real.

    As for cloning, several years ago I bought a domain name “CloneFifi” thinking it would be a thing one day. I never followed through with it, and now it is a thing.

    I think we’re not far from safely cloning humans, in spite of ethical concerns. It’s extremely easy to do at the embryonic level… just halve it, and viola, twins. They’re already able to replace the original DNA in an egg with other DNA (e.g. when the other egg has a serious defect like bad mitochondria).

    Anyway, one more thing to consider here is how AI implants in humans will evolve, whether inside or outside of the brain. I think it’d be instructive to discuss (say) heavily burdening or enhancing one’s own I with AI. (The goal is to enhance, but accidents might happen, too.) Wouldn’t shock me if Elon tried a small version of it. LOL, or Trump after losing in November.

    #33932

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    Again, I am just trying to see all possibilities that AI have to offer, not just the worst ones.  Yes, we should be cautious of dangers and brace for them, but we shouldn’t assume what we face is all dangerous.

    Humans throughout our time on Earth have created enough injustice and atrocities by wrong ideas about their fellow intelligent heings.

    We’ve all had wrong ideas and did wrong things with humans of different tribes, different nations, different “races” and “ethnicities,” plus with each sex and orientation.

    To this day, Atheists, Agnostics, and Secularists are mistrusted and discriminated against for not sharing belief in the Supernatural.

    I just don’t want to continue that with a new intelligent being arising among us as we speak, especially when there’s not yet even evidence of any harm to humans.

    So far as I’ve seen, the worse things AIs have done is beat humans at games.

    Five Examples of AI Dominating Humans in the World of Gaming

    https://futurism.com/five-examples-of-ai-dominating-humans-in-the-world-of-gaming

    Not good for betting, to be sure, but it’s not like some Apocalypse out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The world would know that for sure if it happened.

    #34447

    Unseen
    Participant
Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.