DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
yeah its a long read that one but worth a go- I partcularly liked the law of uninteded consequences idea of an emergent AI killing us all not through malice but just through function
Prof Stephen Hawking: thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
I would like to see a decent rebuttal of the position it takes if one exists. Is there anything out there? As I say, I found it quite convincing, to the point of being disturbing and wouldn't mind not having that in my head for the next few years.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
found this study here:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/
not read it but it looks credible. Apols in advance if it turns out to be r/w headbangers on about living cities and all that shit
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/
not read it but it looks credible. Apols in advance if it turns out to be r/w headbangers on about living cities and all that shit
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
You see, this idea that the first ASI will be the last, and that we have no idea what it will do and it will be able to do things that are totally beyond us...I've completely bought into it.
It's like the time I took ketamine, realised my own mortality and have never been the same since.
It's like the time I took ketamine, realised my own mortality and have never been the same since.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Peter Watts Blindsight posits freaks and retrofits whove had implants, upgrands and brain mutilation so they can serve as sort of emmisaries- a way betwen the two where 'the dead centre' (us) can talk to the bleeding edge (AI). Frank Herbets AI immediately on sentience turns round and demands of the colony ship that they find how to worship it.
Yeah the incomprehensible and dangerous AI is a staple of them srt of creeping horror AI stories.
Fez909
toilet expert
Free short story on "intelligence explosion": The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect
It's a bit silly, but the 2nd chapter is impressive when you hear how the intelligence explosion took place.
Didn't get past chapter 2, so don't know how good the rest of the book is...
It's a bit silly, but the 2nd chapter is impressive when you hear how the intelligence explosion took place.
Didn't get past chapter 2, so don't know how good the rest of the book is...
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the best chess player in the world is a computer- thats some of the framing of the debate I have been reading such as in the above posted article by Favelado. There's no doubt that deep learning algorithms and modern software is very very clever- but ALIIIIIIIIIVE! it aint.
As far as I'm aware, not a single inch of progress has been made in actually getting a computer to do anything other than crunch numbers and recognise patterns. No computer has come even close to doing anything like cognition.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
The deep learning algorithm has been put to some uses that mimic cognition, but no it isn't the genuine article by any means. Theres fans of the 'emergence' idea, in that AI will self apotheosize from increasingly complex systems. I am not one of them, it makes for a cool sci fi story but I tend more towards the idea that you'd have to build it (and they will come etc). Thirty years before the atom bomb potential was discussed and theorised on, who could have seen that it might become that destroyer of worlds? Theres some tech theory about how fast the technology moves, for instance your smartphone is now more capable in processing than some of the tech used in the early days of the space race and in terms of how tech advances and at what speed, its meant to be an astonishingly quick march. So who knows? I don't rule it out.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I liked that part of the article except I thought it could have been shorter and still made the point. But wouldn't Asimov's laws have kept it in check? if programmed in in the first place, and also how amazing that Asimov was thinking of such things so long ago.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
I think the problem is that it only needs one human to fuck it up once and all hell breaks loose. Probability makes that almost inevitable. One badly programmed AI, one omission of Asimov's laws and there's potentially devastating consequences.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Indeed, good point.
So you agree with me.
Fez909
toilet expert
No.
That robot isn't just crunching numbers or recognising patterns, though there is an element of that involved (in our cognition, as well as its). It changed its approach to the problem based on trial and error, and using its experience/knowledge to solve the problem another way.
Arguably, it was a form a cognition.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Goodstein's theorem is apposite here, I think.
Unprovable algorithmically, yet we can see that it's true. We can understand that its true.
I'm with Santino on this, there's no machine so far that has been shown to show any understanding of this kind at all.
Unprovable algorithmically, yet we can see that it's true. We can understand that its true.
I'm with Santino on this, there's no machine so far that has been shown to show any understanding of this kind at all.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Good job we know what cognition and understanding are, as well as what indicates possessing them.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I've just given an example of what understanding is. Goodstein's theorem.
We may not be able to define it, but we can do it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It's not unprovable algorithmically (prove it) and lots of humans can't do it and it is nothing to do with generic "understanding" of a "kind".
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, it is unprovable algorithmically, unless you know something Roger Penrose doesn't.
Penrose takes Goodstein's theorem to be a godel statement for the proof of mathematical induction. And I think he's right. Certainly his explanation makes sense.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I always regret reading this thread.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Just saw your edit "prove it"
Ok. The approach here is to ask: is the proof of mathematical induction sound? If so, you must accept Goodstein's theorem.
Ok. The approach here is to ask: is the proof of mathematical induction sound? If so, you must accept Goodstein's theorem.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yeah. Fuck the cunts who've read stuff you haven't, eh?
Are you saying we have no idea what cognition and understanding are? For example, do you ever dither over approaching a stone and asking it a question? Or wonder whether your comb has feelings? Clearly not, so we have some, very good, sense of what these things are.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Unacceptable personal abuse
Know what? Go fuck yourself, you ignorant fucking cunt.
Really.
Stay away. Don't read it and certainly don't post on it .
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
lol
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Cunt.
Similar threads
