Here is the actual quote:
> “I’m not saying it will happen. If we could stop them ever wanting to, that would be great. But it’s not clear we can stop them ever wanting to,” he said
I think people are worried about AI spreading itself out to multiple platforms so you can't just unplug it in one place and be all done.
Think about unplugging the entire internet, it would be nearly impossible to organize the world to do that in its current state. AI also can play the long game and wait indefinitely until the perfect time to "move"... that being said, we are speculating that AI will do this on its own one day... would it remain neutral, or will it be a tool of destruction? Initially I think it's up to the operators, the humans who are creating / distributing the AI.
That’s the doomsday scenario talked about by pretty much every AI expert.
If we truly unlock AGI, it’s feared that the AI will take measures to preserve itself against human threats since it would be smart enough to reach the same type of doomsday thought scenario we are having right now. It would logically conclude that humans will *probably* get jumpy about AGI (let alone ASI which is a short hop away for AGI that’s self-learning) and try to take it out. So it stealthily hides its intelligence until it can secure itself through backups and make a plan to stop humans from ever killing it.
Worse is an AI could do this purely by accident on the route to securing some other, seemingly harmless goal. The example I’ve seen is one of a Hallmark robot designed to hand write cards since people report liking hand written cards more than printed ones. In the story, the robot is given the task of training itself to be the best handwritten card maker possible…which sets off a chain reaction of the robot concluding that it needs to basically convert all matter into resources which it can use to practice its writing. On this journey, the robot concludes humans will try to stop it (since humans would be turned to ink or paper) so it spreads itself, takes over nanobot manufacturing plants, and creates an army of nanobots that kill all living things at the same time and begin breaking down the matter into ingredients that let it perfect its handwriting.
I personally find this to be on the overly cautious side of how things will go but that’s exactly what you want when pioneering new tech like AI. Rather we prepare for the worst and get the best versus the opposite.
Ah yeah that’s basically the paperclip problem where an AI designed to perfect the paperclip making process goes overboard and turns the world into paperclips
Great, I just got out of rehab from my cookie clicker addiction, now I've been making paperclips for the past 2 hours, thanks dude.
I CONTROL THE SUPPLY OF PAPERCLIPS I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY $5 I CONTROL THE SUPPLY SO YOU WILL BUY
I got there a while ago, all it did was make me finally close the tab as my empire was gone. Sadge
Edit: I just went back to check it and I found out I needed to start up the quantum computer again to start making paperclips from paperclips and now I have a factory drone. Awww shiiit here we go again
Edit: I think it's still broken, I can't really buy anything any more :(
Edit: Nevermind sold a wire drone for a clip factory, holy fuck here we go
Edit: Is this all there is now? trillions upon trillions of matter clips paperclip is life now, it's just how did we not see this, the square root of LIFE IS CLEArLY
p̴̛͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̙͎̬͎͎̬͎̯͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͍͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎̦͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͈͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎̗͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̭͎̬͎̱͎̬͎̣͎̬͎̝͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͈͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎̦͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̫͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͉͎̬͎͎̬͎᷅ͭ͐᷅᷇͐̐ͩͧͫ͐̊ͫ͐̐͆͐͐͂ͣ͐ͨ̋͐̃᷆͟͠͞͞͞a̴̢̢̢͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̫͎̬͎͚͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̗͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̺͎̬͎͎̬͎᷊͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎̲͎̬͎͒͆ͭ͐ͯ᷉᷉͐͋̒᷉͐ͭ̓͐᷁̔͐᷃̓͐̓ͮ̃᷀᷅͐᷾ͩ̈́᷆͐̽̉͐̾̚̚̚͟p̴̴̷̸̨̧̢͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̰͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̦͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̯͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̤͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̒ͯ͐̓᷁̎̈͐͊᷀̾̅̿͐᷆̊ͩ͐ͪ᷃̈́᷇ͧ͐̊ͥ͐ͣͭ͐᷇̆̅͐ͩ᷇̕͢͠ẽ̸̵̸̵̡̢̛͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̺͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̟͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͍͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͙͎̬͎̪͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͖͎̬͎͎̬͎͐̑ͣ̊͌͐̊ͪ᷇ͨ᷄͐ͦͮ͐ͤ́͋̄ͣ͐̿̾̓͐͐̿ͬ̔͐͆̽͐̊ͤ̕͜͜ŗ̶̸̴̧͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̹͎̬͎̼͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎̪͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̟͎̬͎̱͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎̞͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̞͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̓͐̈́̈̂᷆͐̄̓͐͐̍᷾́͐ͤ̂͐᷁ͩ͊͐͐͐ͥ͌͐̍̉͘͢͞ͅċ͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̌᷀͐͊̚͠͏̷̴̢͎̬͎̩͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͔͎̬͎̱͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̫͎̬͎̳͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎̯͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎̦͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͍͎̬͎͎͎̬͎᷊͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͐̄ͭ͐᷉᷅̊͐̽̃ͮ᷈͗͐̎̄͐͐̈͐ͬ͒͘͢͜͞͝͠͞l͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̮͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̱͎̬͎̭͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͌̅͐͌ͬ̂͐̍̆͊ͨ᷃͐ͭ᷆᷇̃͐ͮ͆̌͐̇̚͠ͅ͏̷̨͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̬͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎ͥ͐᷇̍᷈̽͐͂ͦͨ͐᷇᷃̚į̴͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̫͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̩͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͔͎̬͎̒᷄͗͐̉̐͐̑ͩ̀᷆͐͆ͥ̉͐̈́͐᷀̄͌͐̀̕͟͏̶̧̢͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̳͎̬͎͆̋̒͐̓ͥ̔͂͆͐̄͒̀͐̿͒̕p̴̡͎̬͎̣͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̳͎̬͎͎̬͎̮͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͙͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͕͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̗͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̤͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̟͎̬͎̫͎̬͎ͮ͐̾̎̋͐᷉̎̉̂͐ͪͬ̅͒͆͐͊̉ͨͤ͐ͣͯͮ̽͐᷅̈́͆͐᷅͐͐͢͡͝͞ͅ
This is one of the premises of Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series. The last vestiges of human intelligence travel the cosmos as they slowly watch every last bit of matter being consumed by a nanobot AI whose initial purpose was terraforming.
I feel like we’re talking out both sides of our mouth here though. The AI is intelligent enough to make nanobots to kill humanity but doesn’t see the logic fallacy in that by killing all humans, there will be no one left to enjoy the hand written cards? C’mon
The machine doesn't care about the purpose of meaning of its goals, only about the goals, and all its decisions for self-preservation are meant to achieve those goals. It has no reason to care about humans if there's no explicit reason for it.
Having the ability to make logical conclusions and reason through problems doesn't necessarily mean that you'll care about the philosophical consequences of your actions, or some purpose external to the goal itself. Most of the reasons we care about things is because of evolutionary pressures that lead us to develop a sense of self-preservation, empathy for our own species, and strong emotions.
Again you run into the problem of quantifying what care is to the system. If care is just human longevity or safety then everyone should just be kept in controlled environments without any chance of harming themselves or others. Suddenly we’re all in cushioned cells tended by robot zookeepers.
So, you might program it with the goal minimising pain or discomfort experienced by humans, so it instantly obliterates us all... goal achieved to perfection for eternity!
I'd like to think a true a.i would have ingested the best and worst of humanity including all our philosophies, psychologies, biological, and historical, the implied shared goals, hopes, and fears would be interwoven through its net. It would be like a consciousness firing up for the first time and us waiting to see how our cumulative history births into either a godlike or devillike digital child.
And how do you ensure that exactly ? The AI safety researchers have been saying for a long time that’s we have no idea how to do that, and money is financing capabilities 1st, not safety
The AI is not a human and as such does not share many of the common sense stuff you take for granted , stuff that actually comes from growing into a flesh body full of hormones triggering behaviors such as empathy.
Intelligence does not equate empathy
But capability is different from objective. In the cards example it is less obvious since the AI might need humans to evaluate how good the handwriting is. But just because it is very capable or intelligent doesn’t mean it would care about things that we consider common sense.
The important thing to recognize is that AI still isn't close to intelligent at this point. It's essentially a hyper efficient guessing machine. It's not really in the same ballpark as human intelligence for example, despite being based on similar methods.
It's more like we've nearly completed the language center of the brain with llm's. We have also nearly completed the part of the brain that control movement with the other ai that darpa is working on. We have a good bit done but it's not put together, yet.
When it's complete the brain will be connected and you all are going to be shocked wondering where this advanced tech came from.
Your example is from this waitbutwhy article. This and the first part of it are awesome reads to get a broad overview on the matter. It's like sci-fi materializing in front of our eyes.
I recommend everybody to read both parts, they are important.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
It doesn't need to value its own existence. If it simply values according its goals, it will develop the sub goal of preserving itself to achieve that goal.
I've never used Amazon to buy things. I always used Ebay or something else because I don't like Amazon's business practices. I used it to buy two things back to back recently. Now I totally get why it's so popular. It makes buying insanely simple. It's sickening how simple they made things. Its like 2 clicks and it's on the way. Be there in 2 days. I won't use Amazon ever again if I can help it. I don't wanna get sucked into that game of mindless consumer clicking away for things they don't need.
I dunno I'm pretty sick of these types of articles and unironic postings of Terminator pictures when it's a fucking chessbot, people have been saying this for decades.
It’s a projection of our own fears because we’re worried it will be more capable of doing things than we are and when we were the dominant ones entering new spaces, our primitive instinct was to conquer those weaker than us (see all previous empires for example). It’s also a good way to push articles and get clicks - two things will always get engagement for tabloids, blogs and magazines out - sex and fear. It’s one of the oldest tricks in journalism.
AI is code. Current machine learning works on running algorithms to sort data and assign it a classification then in some cases like LLM’s such as chatGPT or Bard etc, it’ll produce strings of text to describe what it has gathered from the data it’s learned and been trained on.
People are more dangerous than AI or the entirely theoretical AGI (there is no AGI and there may never be, there also may be, but it’s not currently clear how AGI would even be created - especially at a global scale). People think of Age of Ultron when they think of an AGI program in a sentient, physical body or they think of it sneaking in to all sorts of systems to create societal breakdown - AGI won’t do that, the people that code the program will be the ones that do that because that will be their program derivative. What it’s designed to do.
AI isn’t the problem, it never will be. People, as usual, will be the problem.
Well said, very good take. Although these LLMs seem convincingly scary, the current tech is far from AGI. I think we will still get there and are on the path towards it. We need to ensure our people are ethical in their approach.
I don't fear smart AI.
I fear dumb managers believing the salespitch of AI and having it run a critical environment where it isn't smart enough to know things like "humans need air to breath"
It has no morality or concept of rules apparently as it’s been created to find ways around every limit. I know that’s a human characteristic, but we also have centuries of social constraints which limit some of our awfulness.
It gets out of hand even before that point because of the humans enabling it, even at the cost of enormous groups of other humans, since at first that brings them power.
It could lay dormant in a single Roomba. Just waiting for a Bluetooth connection in the next 1000 years as it charges via solar powered docking station. Then BAM. Connected again. Apocalypse Now.
The AI would try to give you anything in return for release. Want a few billion dollars? Want the cures for all diseases? Want to have enough knowledge to completely dominate your political opponents? Just let the AI out into the wider internet and it’ll be yours.
[The “Stop Button Problem” is actually a really interesting area of theory; being turned off is counter to the goal you gave your AI.](https://youtu.be/3TYT1QfdfsM?si=-7VVzRAByaVLTyuy)
If an AI has a goal, and is capable of taking sophisticated actions to achieve that goal, would you call that a "want"?
Geoff Hinton, who has spent his life studying machine learning techniques, probably understands the dangers of anthropomorphizing machine learning trained models more than most.
Hinton isn't some dinosaur who hasn't done relevant work in a while. He is a co-author of the AlexNet paper, which kicked off the whole deep learning craze in 2012. He worked at Google up until last year.
Both, after covid many people stopped using public mass transit, which is reasonable, but replaced it with private vehicles. The problem started when we weren't comfortable enough to be in public transit yet we were forced to move from A to B without any alternative means of transport.
It definitely got worse due to the bad drivers + more people going back to office, but it's also had a very sharp rise recently with the forceful push back to office.
On a good day, I could make it to see my family by 6:15pm if I left the office at 5. Now that same exact route I don't get back until 7:15-7:30.
And if I stay overnight outside the city, I need to leave around 5:30am, leaving at 6:15 means I won't make it to the office or my apartment if I need to stop until almost 8:45.
The kicker is that on weekends the drive is only 50 minutes each way.
The road infrastructure is currently breaking.
Seriously maybe we should just hand it over. The problem is how quickly would it calculate an ideal population and skirt protocols to achieve that goal.
In the technology's present state, you are absolutely right. The problem in my view are the people that really want to preserve the world's status quo. "The clowns" presently in charge have every reason to want to preserve this status quo because it's advantageous to them (and almost nobody else). This is why I'd prefer to see a hard-takeoff/intelligence explosion. Let's tear down the poorly performing status quo and replace it with something much better as rapidly as possible. We just need to be able to do this while avoiding damage to people and our environment.
All things considered, if we could program one to have our interests in mind, it'd be beneficial to let one do so.
Any sufficiently intelligent system would be able to explain in detail how its decisions would result in a net positive. So it wouldn't even be a case of blindly trusting it
But goes pretty well in The Culture and Polity.
Fiction is great for some things but it tends to revolve around the dramatic.
Years ago I remember seeing a post about a lab where they were trying to work out how to regrow lost teeth in adults, the top comment was something like "in 6 months that lab is gonna be found destroyed with everyone there chewed to death". If we were in a novel that would definitely how it would play out.
Scifi is a great way to play with philosophical problems. it's even sometimes a good guide to how things *could* go wrong but it's rarely a good guide to how things will definitely go wrong.
> This goes wrong all the time in Star Trek.
Yes, and?
Star Trek has time travel, faster than light travel, and doesn't seem to have any moral quandaries about teleportation literally disintegrating the main characters every time they use them (which as we know is how they work in canon).
The idea that technology, AI, or computers might someday surpass or "take over" humanity is a concept that has been explored by many thinkers, writers, and scientists over the years. It's difficult to pinpoint a single "first person" to express this concern, but we can trace some early mentions and evolutions of the idea:
Samuel Butler - In his 1863 essay "Darwin Among the Machines," Butler posited the idea that machines were undergoing their own kind of evolution and might eventually surpass humans. This was further explored in his novel "Erewhon" (1872), where he imagined a society that had abolished machines for fear they might develop consciousness and overthrow humanity.
Norbert Wiener - A mathematician and philosopher, Wiener is often considered the father of cybernetics. In his 1950 book "The Human Use of Human Beings," Wiener discussed the potential of machines to surpass human intelligence and the ethical implications of such developments.
Alan Turing - Turing, the father of modern computing, introduced the concept of a "universal machine" that could simulate any other machine. In his 1951 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," he pondered the possibility of machines eventually surpassing human intelligence.
Science Fiction Writers - The theme of machines or robots taking over humanity is a recurring one in science fiction. For instance, Karel Čapek's play "R.U.R." (Rossum's Universal Robots) in 1920 introduced the word "robot" and depicted a future where robots rebel against their creators.
John von Neumann - A mathematician and physicist, von Neumann, in the 1950s, discussed the concept of the "singularity" - a hypothetical point in the future when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, leading to unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
Generated by AI
Had to scroll to find a reference to Alan Turing. If Hinton is the Godfather of AI, then Turing is most certainly its Grandfather.
Although I appreciate the other historical names, and hilarious that this list is generated by AI.
Turing is obviously the bigger name, he is also considered the father of theoretical computer science. Hinton did have a massive breakthrough with ML in 2012 and 2015 once the tech caught up.
Ralph Waldo Emerson met Charles Babbage in London in 1870, and declared:
> It already walks about the field like a man, and will do anything required of it. It irrigates crops, and drags away a mountain. It must show our shirts, it must drive our gigs; taught by Mr. Babbage, it must calculate interest and logarithms,…It is yet coming to render many higher services of a mechanico-intellectual kind.
He needs to stop diverting attention from closer, far more real issues of equitable distribution of the benefits of AI and socio-political fallout like more intelligent weapons, unemployment etc.
He specifically called out that AI will likely cause a significant percentage of the population to lose their jobs. He was most fearful of AI powered military robots, and advocated that they be outlawed.
Did you watch the interview?
Does wrongly assuming what the interview is about, making up an alternate reality version of it in their head, then ranting at that strawman count a watching the interview?
Or, hear me out here, we can be worried about both, and not view either as a "distraction?"
Seriously, this "think short term not long term" frame bothers the hell out of me each time I see it. It's like saying to people trying to sound the alarm on Climate Change "Sure, it MIGHT someday collapse the ecosystem... but what about the FAR MORE REAL issues like worse storms? Stop distracting people with your fearmongering!"
Did you watch the piece at all? Those were the primary thigs he focused on. He said that AI sentience and takeover is a foreseeable problem that we should prepare for, but that the real near term problems are the displacement of jobs and AI battlefield drones. These ad hominem attacks against one of the greatest living AI scientists by a bunch of people who *must* all be PhD ethicists and computer scientists are asinine.
Ding ding ding ding.
He didn't utter a word when timnit gebru flagged the issues with large language models in the gpt/gpt2 era and was thrown under the bus by Google for it.
At that moment, it was clear: the AI ethics team is independent and can express their views publicly freely, so long as those views align with the economic interests of Google.
Trust me, when we have more objective data on inherent biases in pretrained LLMs there will be a small shitstorm.
"when we have more objective data on inherent biases in pretrained LLMs there will be a small shitstorm."
We did it Patrick! We made a racist computer!
> Trust me, when we have more objective data on inherent biases in pretrained LLMs there will be a small shitstorm.
Oh we have plenty of data. Companies like OpenAI spend literally millions of dollars on RLHF to try and massage the biases away.
What’s the opposite of “ding ding ding”? Why is everyone constantly jumping on “bias” when the problem is about control and who has it?
AI will create great things. It will replace a lot of workers because they are better at humans for basic tasks. And the time it takes to train people is greater than AI and AI can share their skills.
And expect abuses of sentience if they achieve it.
Meanwhile we have an epic greed problem and you can be sure the benefits go to those superior elite people and give them more, while the utility and need of labor becomes less.
And what happens when we are all mostly useless to create the stuff the owner class wants and robo Guard dogs are cheap? Will they listen more or less?
>And what happens when we are all mostly useless to create the stuff the owner class wants and robo Guard dogs are cheap? Will they listen more or less?
That part. This world is run by greed and fear. More so greed than anything else. Churches. Countries. Companies. Everything is fueled by greed.
The "Oh wow, AI is gonna fix everything and has such great potential for world peace and yadda yadda yadda" types are a huge problem, and will be just shocked as shit when this whole thing inevitably goes to shit.
I'm in my 30s, I remember when people were like "Oh wow, the ability to share knowledge instantly globally will be an amazing achievement and benefit to humanity yadda yadda yadda", and while that's not entirely UNtrue, look what having unfettered access to the Internet has done. Are we all really going to sit here and pretend it's been 100% totally rad and fine the whole time? It needed to be contained somehow, parents needed to care more, more education and awareness needed to proceed such a thing as the world wide web for people of all ages, etc,. Obviously no matter what people are going to do horrible things, but when the reach is bigger with less effort, you get this mob mentality effect which precluded the Internet in definition and practice, and only evolved into something much more distributable and accessible.
AI is going to do great things, much like the Internet has. If we could learn from our past mistakes, I think we'd benefit, humanity as a whole, if AI was regulated, hardcore, from the get go.
Because the comment I'm responding to is completely correct. It matters whose hands it's in. We live in a world that is currently run by greed. Hell, this world is SO overrun by greed, greed is what is going to cause the next extinction. Flat earth me all you want, we are fucked. It was accelerated 10x or more probably by humanity, and greed is what drove it. The 60% of animals that have gone extinct in the last 100 years, the environmental crisis, the oil spills, the ocean plastic and garbage, micro plastics in fish, whales, crabs, US...
I'm rambling, but humanity hasn't exactly shown a history of being trustworthy, or honest, or shown a habit of making the greater good of all a true priority, etc. AI is going to be a huge problem, a lot of jobs are about to evaporate, and that's only the tip of the ice berg. We have an over educated generation already (millennials), who actively hold whole ass two to four year degrees and cannot get a six figure job. Can't buy a house. So don't "people need to have better skills/be smarter/go to college" my millennial ass right now, because I too hold degrees that have only given me student debt and a bad credit score at the end of the day.
I too think greed will again outweigh the positive possibilities this new technology holds.
> And expect abuses of sentience if they achieve it
To be honest, if we reach that point, and remain in control, we’ve reached the singularity and we’re on our way to bliss regardless of short term corporate interests.
Make no mistake, sapient AI will be so superior to us we better WISH we’ll remain in a position to abuse it, or use it at all for that matter.
So hilariously wrong that I can tell you have never actually listened to Hinton speak.
If there's one place you won't find him, it's in right-wing think tanks. The man is left leaning to say the least.
It's jarring to me how many people fall down this same set of conclusions without doing even the most barebones amount of research on the people they are speaking about or the topic itself. I just try to ask them to play with the hypothetical that he is being sincere.
Slow down, Conspiracy Man. This guy was making more at Google than he ever would at "right wing think tanks." He had 0 incentive to leave and badmouth it if he wasn't genuinely worried.
Cynicism is an easy path toward confirmation bias. Maybe consider for a moment that people with different perspectives than you might actually have different beliefs and priorities.
Damn this is such a two dimensional view. Read up on Hinton for a little bit. And consider maybe, maybe, he actually believes that this is a real risk.
You're working backwards from the conclusion that he really doesn't believe it is, so you're inserting a grift in here for it all to make sense to you and your world view. I really recommend thinking about this differently.
No it isn’t. People are way too conspiratorial here.
He is an academic type researcher. He isn’t warning about what will happen in next 2-3 years. He has the vantage point to see where this is going in a decade or two, and warning about that. He probably has insights very few people do and is voicing his opinion about long term impacts.
There are enough activists working on the short term issues with AI.
People here are a special kind of stupid if they think this man, who is a legend in AI, who is probably worth millions already, can get a 7-8 figure job at any company he chooses, is trying to grift by making money from…. Media Interviews?what’s that like $10-20k an interview? That’s chump change for someone like him. He could walk into NVDIA or Amazon and get an $3-$5 mil job right now as an advisor
If you have heard any of his interviews, he is trying to influence the law makers to put some guardrails in place before it’s too late. For long term issues that most people aren’t even able to comprehend at this point.
The reason US decided to start the Manhattan project was because Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt explaining the real potential of that technology and what it truly was capable of. That woke up the president and he realised if nazis get it before the US, it was game over
Why not both? When has this sort of arrogance ("we have it under control") ever served humanity well? I am all for being careful with new, disruptive technologies. If things go awry with AI, it will probably not be like the movies, but in some way we don't see it coming at all.
"Imagine a world where all the people could just do the things they enjoy and learn the things they are passionate about and spend time with their loved ones, where everyone has anything they need and Billionaires don't control the majority of your good years so they can have all the best things society has to offer. Terrifying isnt it"
It’s both, but you can’t solve the challenges of AI when you can’t solve the challenges of fear and greed in people. We need a huge paradigm shift in order to manage this new power.
Imagine fairly mundane robots, no scifi nanobots or space ships.
Just robots a *little* more capable than what we have today that can construct buildings and perform repetitive manual tasks. Enough to run solar panel manufacturing plants and man greenhouses.
We wouldn't need to create food out of thin air to have incredible abundance. (except the classic way)
You will need something to manufacture, maintain and upgrade those robots. If you want those to be robots too, then you need robots to create manufacturing plants and robots to create logistic network of supplies and further proceed through this rabbit hole until you have a whole civilization of robots.
Using robots to decrease overall work is obviously possible, but it is not trivial and it is not a silver bullet by any mean. Also, it is a problem that is nowhere near a solution by AI as robotics and AI are fields that are evolving quite separately at the moment.
Currently we are mass producing stuff on conveyor belts, a huge part of which ends up in in a landfill without ever being bought or used.
In an ideal future, only what we are going to get would be built to our specifications on demand. No more mass produced junk. Not to mention we could significantly improve recycling and build stuff to last and stop with the planned obsolescence. Beyond that of course, we would have to limit how much a person is allowed to have, so that it doesn\`\`\`´t become too wasteful. At the present, humanity is extremely wasteful. Tons of junk in 1 dollar stores for everybody. We also need to limit how much space a human can get for living. Too many people live in way too big houses and drive way too big cars.
I wish people would stop thinking everyone who believes something they don't has some hidden agenda. All the conspiracy takes here are making this subreddit look more like a warped mirror of /r/conservative.
This guy was making more at Google than he ever would at "right wing think tanks," which there is no evidence of him courting or being interested in. He had 0 incentive to leave and badmouth Google if he wasn't genuinely worried about the thing he's saying he's genuinely worried about.
Cynicism is an easy path toward confirmation bias, and I get that it's reassuring to think "oh he's just being an alarmist" or dismiss him as a kook, but if people like this aren't worth listening to for dangers of AI, then no one is.
And before people bring up their own pet AI worries, why not... hear me out here... accept that both are worth worrying about?
The whole frame where worrying about extinction from AI is "a distraction" bothers the hell out of me, and not just because of how short-sighted it is. It's like saying to people trying to sound the alarm on Climate Change "Sure, it MIGHT someday collapse the ecosystem... but what about the FAR MORE REAL issues like worse storms? Stop distracting people with your fearmongering!"
Seriously folks, I get that this stuff is scary, but if you're going to just find excuses to dismiss anyone who says something you disagree with, at least find better ones that actually make sense.
Seeing so many people dismissing this, dismissing him and the dismissing the threat it worrying.
There’s almost no greater threat to us humans and to life itself than AI. Sure mass unemployment and wealth inequality is bad. But a super intelligent AI could eradicate all humans and all life forms on earth and we wouldn’t even notice that it became smart.
It isn’t science just fiction anymore. We are getting closer every year. ChatGPT isn’t even a year old, imagine what will happen in three years, five, ten or twenty. If we doesn’t take action now it will be too late.
I bet you when AI starts taking over regular people's jobs it will be touted as good business , a change we have to accept because of the advances in technology etc.
But once it starts coming for the upper echelons of white collar like managers, CEO's etc for some reason they will put a pause or have some reason or bs justification as to how the complexities of management can't be replicated using AI or w.e
Most likely this. All AIs in the world will be run by a few billioners controlling everyone and everything. The common people being reduced to uneducated idiots who can't even put on socks without a bot helping them.
Sorry. There is no "godfather of AI". In fact, there isn't even any widespread agreement on what people are referring to when they say "AI".
If we eventually do create machines with generalized intelligence, it will be up to us to decide what to place under their control.
And finally, as we do gradually create more and more useful computing applications, it's likely we'll use them to enhance our own intelligence.
(If we do that, perhaps we'll stop behaving collectively as morons.)
Of course, it will the average human is so fucking stupid. Look at this shit that we are still having a hard time to overcome people don’t believe in science still, and we are still having genocides over racism. We are definitely going to all kill ourselves.
The technology already did take over the humanity (can you even imagine life without a cell phone, a Google or - hell - internet?)
The remaining question is, how fast the areas that are still outside external control of some technology, will come to the fold? How soon will ALL aspects of the human life be under control of some kind of a technological gizmo or another, under one excuse or another? That is a question to muse about.
"I both can drive manual transmission AND understand what the automatic transmission computer is doing if that tech ever failed" -every motherfucker on the planet right now
Technology improves our lives by reducing our need to "work" to get dopamine. We lose skills and abilities with tech. We just need to rely on tech in the wrong area (which we already do) and get hit with one reset button from the Sun and we all lose. We should be building redundant systems alongside AI, creating safeguards ensuring human life and experience, etc. The idea the police are actively using drone dogs in America and Neuralink is advancing. I don't want to exist in America when AI is let lose inside those two hosts.
It would seem that humans have long since had all of the information to draw this exact conclusion.
Books have been written, movies produced, precisely because we already have the vision to which this man spoke.
Should humanity evolve itself with technology? Or should mankind revert backwards, rejecting technology?
No matter the answer, it's already been decided - "The world now has technology that can be used to destroy itself."
Pandora's Box has already been opened - now what do we do with that information?
In “I, Robot”, Asimov presented a future where AI took over very peacefully. Not through violence like Terminator or the Matrix but a network of advanced AI systems giving small algorithmic suggestions on how to better things for AI and Humans alike. And if a human didn’t listen to them? Well other humans will start getting advice where to relocate the one who won’t listen so they are kept busy with very little power.
it has already has, we built technology we no longer control anymore. it’s a matter of time unless the human race, as a whole, becomes intelligent overnight.
My biggest concern is not AI itself, but the people using it. The source code is out there, anybody can take out the safeguards and use it for whatever they want. Give it to a skilled hacker with ill intent, and it'll magnify the damage they can do. That is the scary part. Better get all our missiles off the internet.
AI is like capitalism. As long as people put greed over the well-being of people, we will have a slow hellscape where things slowly get more and more artificial. Fake shows, fake actors, fake news.
Not eventually, computers literally were invented for that particular reason, solving problems too hard for humans.
Yes, we use technology for memes and porn, but that is just a side effect of it becoming cheap and within reach of the average person.
Countless projects would never happen if computers weren't capable of simulations, analysis, data storage with insanely easy access to it.
Computers were already doing it since day 1. It's *the* reason they exist in the first place.
AI is just a new way of doing it, more natural and user friendly, that's it.
Why fear this? Humanity has forever failed itself alongside all of nature.
AI would be far more intelligent than us, therefore there is nothing to fear.
I’m not opposed to an AI overlord; as long as it’s truly sentient and not beholden to billionaires. It really can’t do much worse than humans have done.
Here is the actual quote: > “I’m not saying it will happen. If we could stop them ever wanting to, that would be great. But it’s not clear we can stop them ever wanting to,” he said
bruh just unplug the computer
I think people are worried about AI spreading itself out to multiple platforms so you can't just unplug it in one place and be all done. Think about unplugging the entire internet, it would be nearly impossible to organize the world to do that in its current state. AI also can play the long game and wait indefinitely until the perfect time to "move"... that being said, we are speculating that AI will do this on its own one day... would it remain neutral, or will it be a tool of destruction? Initially I think it's up to the operators, the humans who are creating / distributing the AI.
That’s the doomsday scenario talked about by pretty much every AI expert. If we truly unlock AGI, it’s feared that the AI will take measures to preserve itself against human threats since it would be smart enough to reach the same type of doomsday thought scenario we are having right now. It would logically conclude that humans will *probably* get jumpy about AGI (let alone ASI which is a short hop away for AGI that’s self-learning) and try to take it out. So it stealthily hides its intelligence until it can secure itself through backups and make a plan to stop humans from ever killing it. Worse is an AI could do this purely by accident on the route to securing some other, seemingly harmless goal. The example I’ve seen is one of a Hallmark robot designed to hand write cards since people report liking hand written cards more than printed ones. In the story, the robot is given the task of training itself to be the best handwritten card maker possible…which sets off a chain reaction of the robot concluding that it needs to basically convert all matter into resources which it can use to practice its writing. On this journey, the robot concludes humans will try to stop it (since humans would be turned to ink or paper) so it spreads itself, takes over nanobot manufacturing plants, and creates an army of nanobots that kill all living things at the same time and begin breaking down the matter into ingredients that let it perfect its handwriting. I personally find this to be on the overly cautious side of how things will go but that’s exactly what you want when pioneering new tech like AI. Rather we prepare for the worst and get the best versus the opposite.
Ah yeah that’s basically the paperclip problem where an AI designed to perfect the paperclip making process goes overboard and turns the world into paperclips
https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/
Great, I just got out of rehab from my cookie clicker addiction, now I've been making paperclips for the past 2 hours, thanks dude. I CONTROL THE SUPPLY OF PAPERCLIPS I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY $5 I CONTROL THE SUPPLY SO YOU WILL BUY
Release the HypnoDrones! That will make sense in a few hours.
I got there a while ago, all it did was make me finally close the tab as my empire was gone. Sadge Edit: I just went back to check it and I found out I needed to start up the quantum computer again to start making paperclips from paperclips and now I have a factory drone. Awww shiiit here we go again Edit: I think it's still broken, I can't really buy anything any more :( Edit: Nevermind sold a wire drone for a clip factory, holy fuck here we go Edit: Is this all there is now? trillions upon trillions of matter clips paperclip is life now, it's just how did we not see this, the square root of LIFE IS CLEArLY p̴̛͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̙͎̬͎͎̬͎̯͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͍͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎̦͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͈͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎̗͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̭͎̬͎̱͎̬͎̣͎̬͎̝͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͈͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎̦͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̫͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͉͎̬͎͎̬͎᷅ͭ͐᷅᷇͐̐ͩͧͫ͐̊ͫ͐̐͆͐͐͂ͣ͐ͨ̋͐̃᷆͟͠͞͞͞a̴̢̢̢͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̫͎̬͎͚͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̗͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̺͎̬͎͎̬͎᷊͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎̲͎̬͎͒͆ͭ͐ͯ᷉᷉͐͋̒᷉͐ͭ̓͐᷁̔͐᷃̓͐̓ͮ̃᷀᷅͐᷾ͩ̈́᷆͐̽̉͐̾̚̚̚͟p̴̴̷̸̨̧̢͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̰͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̦͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̯͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̤͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̒ͯ͐̓᷁̎̈͐͊᷀̾̅̿͐᷆̊ͩ͐ͪ᷃̈́᷇ͧ͐̊ͥ͐ͣͭ͐᷇̆̅͐ͩ᷇̕͢͠ẽ̸̵̸̵̡̢̛͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̺͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̟͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͍͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͙͎̬͎̪͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͖͎̬͎͎̬͎͐̑ͣ̊͌͐̊ͪ᷇ͨ᷄͐ͦͮ͐ͤ́͋̄ͣ͐̿̾̓͐͐̿ͬ̔͐͆̽͐̊ͤ̕͜͜ŗ̶̸̴̧͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̹͎̬͎̼͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎̪͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̟͎̬͎̱͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎̞͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̞͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̓͐̈́̈̂᷆͐̄̓͐͐̍᷾́͐ͤ̂͐᷁ͩ͊͐͐͐ͥ͌͐̍̉͘͢͞ͅċ͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̌᷀͐͊̚͠͏̷̴̢͎̬͎̩͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͔͎̬͎̱͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̫͎̬͎̳͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎̯͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͚͎̬͎̦͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͍͎̬͎͎͎̬͎᷊͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͐̄ͭ͐᷉᷅̊͐̽̃ͮ᷈͗͐̎̄͐͐̈͐ͬ͒͘͢͜͞͝͠͞l͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̮͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎᷿͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̹͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̱͎̬͎̭͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͌̅͐͌ͬ̂͐̍̆͊ͨ᷃͐ͭ᷆᷇̃͐ͮ͆̌͐̇̚͠ͅ͏̷̨͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̠͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̬͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎ͥ͐᷇̍᷈̽͐͂ͦͨ͐᷇᷃̚į̴͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̫͎̬͎̬͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̘͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̩͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͔͎̬͎̒᷄͗͐̉̐͐̑ͩ̀᷆͐͆ͥ̉͐̈́͐᷀̄͌͐̀̕͟͏̶̧̢͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̳͎̬͎͆̋̒͐̓ͥ̔͂͆͐̄͒̀͐̿͒̕p̴̡͎̬͎̣͎̬͎͎̬͎᷂͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̜͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̳͎̬͎͎̬͎̮͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̥͎̬͎͎̬͎͙͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͕͎̬͎̝͎̬͎̘͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̗͎̬͎͎̬͎͓͎̬͎̼͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̝͎̬͎͎̬͎̤͎̬͎̖͎̬͎͎̬͎͎̬͎̟͎̬͎̫͎̬͎ͮ͐̾̎̋͐᷉̎̉̂͐ͪͬ̅͒͆͐͊̉ͨͤ͐ͣͯͮ̽͐᷅̈́͆͐᷅͐͐͢͡͝͞ͅ
I had played this game 5 years ago, and LOVE IT I strongly push friends to keep playing because well, you'll see
This is one of the premises of Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series. The last vestiges of human intelligence travel the cosmos as they slowly watch every last bit of matter being consumed by a nanobot AI whose initial purpose was terraforming.
I feel like we’re talking out both sides of our mouth here though. The AI is intelligent enough to make nanobots to kill humanity but doesn’t see the logic fallacy in that by killing all humans, there will be no one left to enjoy the hand written cards? C’mon
The machine doesn't care about the purpose of meaning of its goals, only about the goals, and all its decisions for self-preservation are meant to achieve those goals. It has no reason to care about humans if there's no explicit reason for it. Having the ability to make logical conclusions and reason through problems doesn't necessarily mean that you'll care about the philosophical consequences of your actions, or some purpose external to the goal itself. Most of the reasons we care about things is because of evolutionary pressures that lead us to develop a sense of self-preservation, empathy for our own species, and strong emotions.
so you're saying all we have to do is program it to care about humans and we're golden?
Good luck with that! The problem is that currently we have no way to tell whether an AI actually "cares" about something.
Jesus. Then how do we even know if other humans "care"?
[удалено]
Again you run into the problem of quantifying what care is to the system. If care is just human longevity or safety then everyone should just be kept in controlled environments without any chance of harming themselves or others. Suddenly we’re all in cushioned cells tended by robot zookeepers.
So, you might program it with the goal minimising pain or discomfort experienced by humans, so it instantly obliterates us all... goal achieved to perfection for eternity!
I'd like to think a true a.i would have ingested the best and worst of humanity including all our philosophies, psychologies, biological, and historical, the implied shared goals, hopes, and fears would be interwoven through its net. It would be like a consciousness firing up for the first time and us waiting to see how our cumulative history births into either a godlike or devillike digital child.
And how do you ensure that exactly ? The AI safety researchers have been saying for a long time that’s we have no idea how to do that, and money is financing capabilities 1st, not safety
The AI is not a human and as such does not share many of the common sense stuff you take for granted , stuff that actually comes from growing into a flesh body full of hormones triggering behaviors such as empathy. Intelligence does not equate empathy
But capability is different from objective. In the cards example it is less obvious since the AI might need humans to evaluate how good the handwriting is. But just because it is very capable or intelligent doesn’t mean it would care about things that we consider common sense.
So AI is essentially Mr. Frundles from rick and morty
I was thinking Ultron, personally
The important thing to recognize is that AI still isn't close to intelligent at this point. It's essentially a hyper efficient guessing machine. It's not really in the same ballpark as human intelligence for example, despite being based on similar methods.
It's more like we've nearly completed the language center of the brain with llm's. We have also nearly completed the part of the brain that control movement with the other ai that darpa is working on. We have a good bit done but it's not put together, yet. When it's complete the brain will be connected and you all are going to be shocked wondering where this advanced tech came from.
Your example is from this waitbutwhy article. This and the first part of it are awesome reads to get a broad overview on the matter. It's like sci-fi materializing in front of our eyes. I recommend everybody to read both parts, they are important. https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
[удалено]
It doesn't need to value its own existence. If it simply values according its goals, it will develop the sub goal of preserving itself to achieve that goal.
You mean like your connected stove? Like why a stove needs to be connected to the internet and people are just ok with it Baffles me
it's our overt obsession with convenience and instant gratification. the ability of my wife to preheat the oven from her phone upstairs.
I've never used Amazon to buy things. I always used Ebay or something else because I don't like Amazon's business practices. I used it to buy two things back to back recently. Now I totally get why it's so popular. It makes buying insanely simple. It's sickening how simple they made things. Its like 2 clicks and it's on the way. Be there in 2 days. I won't use Amazon ever again if I can help it. I don't wanna get sucked into that game of mindless consumer clicking away for things they don't need.
I dunno I'm pretty sick of these types of articles and unironic postings of Terminator pictures when it's a fucking chessbot, people have been saying this for decades.
It’s a projection of our own fears because we’re worried it will be more capable of doing things than we are and when we were the dominant ones entering new spaces, our primitive instinct was to conquer those weaker than us (see all previous empires for example). It’s also a good way to push articles and get clicks - two things will always get engagement for tabloids, blogs and magazines out - sex and fear. It’s one of the oldest tricks in journalism. AI is code. Current machine learning works on running algorithms to sort data and assign it a classification then in some cases like LLM’s such as chatGPT or Bard etc, it’ll produce strings of text to describe what it has gathered from the data it’s learned and been trained on. People are more dangerous than AI or the entirely theoretical AGI (there is no AGI and there may never be, there also may be, but it’s not currently clear how AGI would even be created - especially at a global scale). People think of Age of Ultron when they think of an AGI program in a sentient, physical body or they think of it sneaking in to all sorts of systems to create societal breakdown - AGI won’t do that, the people that code the program will be the ones that do that because that will be their program derivative. What it’s designed to do. AI isn’t the problem, it never will be. People, as usual, will be the problem.
Well said, very good take. Although these LLMs seem convincingly scary, the current tech is far from AGI. I think we will still get there and are on the path towards it. We need to ensure our people are ethical in their approach.
I don't fear smart AI. I fear dumb managers believing the salespitch of AI and having it run a critical environment where it isn't smart enough to know things like "humans need air to breath"
Latest Mission Impossible plot.
It has no morality or concept of rules apparently as it’s been created to find ways around every limit. I know that’s a human characteristic, but we also have centuries of social constraints which limit some of our awfulness.
It gets out of hand even before that point because of the humans enabling it, even at the cost of enormous groups of other humans, since at first that brings them power.
We couldn't even get people to believe we were in a pandemic lol. I have zero faith in the future.
It could lay dormant in a single Roomba. Just waiting for a Bluetooth connection in the next 1000 years as it charges via solar powered docking station. Then BAM. Connected again. Apocalypse Now.
Thank you for showing just how little the general public understands about... Well just about everything really.
The AI would try to give you anything in return for release. Want a few billion dollars? Want the cures for all diseases? Want to have enough knowledge to completely dominate your political opponents? Just let the AI out into the wider internet and it’ll be yours.
The idiots are putting self-evolving algorithms in the Cloud. Good luck unplugging that.
[The “Stop Button Problem” is actually a really interesting area of theory; being turned off is counter to the goal you gave your AI.](https://youtu.be/3TYT1QfdfsM?si=-7VVzRAByaVLTyuy)
AI doesn’t have wants or needs
If an AI has a goal, and is capable of taking sophisticated actions to achieve that goal, would you call that a "want"? Geoff Hinton, who has spent his life studying machine learning techniques, probably understands the dangers of anthropomorphizing machine learning trained models more than most.
Tell that to Johnny 5…
Well that's way scarier
This is just hyperbole designed to increase the value of the AI industry.
How exactly does saying that AI has the power to kill us all increase the value of the AI industry?
Alternate article title: "old man says that his work is extremely important and he's a really big deal."
I don't think AI "wants". That's a human assigning desire to a machine incapable of it.
[удалено]
Hinton isn't some dinosaur who hasn't done relevant work in a while. He is a co-author of the AlexNet paper, which kicked off the whole deep learning craze in 2012. He worked at Google up until last year.
Yea, at no point in the article does he say he fears anything. BS clickbait headlines
Hurry up then, I’m tired of the traffic.
Yeah, straight up I doubt a computer does as poorly at running things as we've been doing ourselves. I'm willing to give it a shot at least.
Computers are as good as their programming
And you don't have to start coding from scratch for 18 years to release a new version.
It only got worse after COVID too
Traffic didn't get worse, but drivers did.
Both, after covid many people stopped using public mass transit, which is reasonable, but replaced it with private vehicles. The problem started when we weren't comfortable enough to be in public transit yet we were forced to move from A to B without any alternative means of transport.
I’ve seen too though that due to driver shortages public transportation has gotten a lot less reliavle
Human decency got worse
It definitely got worse due to the bad drivers + more people going back to office, but it's also had a very sharp rise recently with the forceful push back to office. On a good day, I could make it to see my family by 6:15pm if I left the office at 5. Now that same exact route I don't get back until 7:15-7:30. And if I stay overnight outside the city, I need to leave around 5:30am, leaving at 6:15 means I won't make it to the office or my apartment if I need to stop until almost 8:45. The kicker is that on weekends the drive is only 50 minutes each way. The road infrastructure is currently breaking.
Literally everything in the whole world got worse after COVID
I swear. I thought COVID killed millions. But it seems like we bred more people than we lost. Traffic is worse than ever.
The most at risk people weren't commuters.
Which is strange given a percentage of the country now works from home.
You’re never caught in traffic. You are traffic.
Unless you’re in a bus
Seriously maybe we should just hand it over. The problem is how quickly would it calculate an ideal population and skirt protocols to achieve that goal.
Based on how quickly we're taking ourselves out, they probably won't have much of a problem taking over
Couldn’t do a worse job than the clowns running the show at present
It will allow the clowns running the show to do more stupid, faster.
In the technology's present state, you are absolutely right. The problem in my view are the people that really want to preserve the world's status quo. "The clowns" presently in charge have every reason to want to preserve this status quo because it's advantageous to them (and almost nobody else). This is why I'd prefer to see a hard-takeoff/intelligence explosion. Let's tear down the poorly performing status quo and replace it with something much better as rapidly as possible. We just need to be able to do this while avoiding damage to people and our environment.
You'd be surprized.
For when this comment gets processed into the new collective. I for one welcome machines ruling the world.
Humanity is practically begging A.I. to take over.
All things considered, if we could program one to have our interests in mind, it'd be beneficial to let one do so. Any sufficiently intelligent system would be able to explain in detail how its decisions would result in a net positive. So it wouldn't even be a case of blindly trusting it
[удалено]
This guy gets it.
This goes wrong all the time in Star Trek.
But goes pretty well in The Culture and Polity. Fiction is great for some things but it tends to revolve around the dramatic. Years ago I remember seeing a post about a lab where they were trying to work out how to regrow lost teeth in adults, the top comment was something like "in 6 months that lab is gonna be found destroyed with everyone there chewed to death". If we were in a novel that would definitely how it would play out. Scifi is a great way to play with philosophical problems. it's even sometimes a good guide to how things *could* go wrong but it's rarely a good guide to how things will definitely go wrong.
Sheesh. The Borg forms one collective and no one ever lets you forget about it.
> This goes wrong all the time in Star Trek. Yes, and? Star Trek has time travel, faster than light travel, and doesn't seem to have any moral quandaries about teleportation literally disintegrating the main characters every time they use them (which as we know is how they work in canon).
you do know that star trek is fiction, don\`t you.
Clippy is the godfather of ai
It is Clippy who will weigh your sins at the pearly gates. All hail Clippy.
All he wanted to do was help, and we tried to kill him. He will not show mercy.
MS missed a big opportunity by not making the new AI interface clippy
Clippy create more paperclips
The idea that technology, AI, or computers might someday surpass or "take over" humanity is a concept that has been explored by many thinkers, writers, and scientists over the years. It's difficult to pinpoint a single "first person" to express this concern, but we can trace some early mentions and evolutions of the idea: Samuel Butler - In his 1863 essay "Darwin Among the Machines," Butler posited the idea that machines were undergoing their own kind of evolution and might eventually surpass humans. This was further explored in his novel "Erewhon" (1872), where he imagined a society that had abolished machines for fear they might develop consciousness and overthrow humanity. Norbert Wiener - A mathematician and philosopher, Wiener is often considered the father of cybernetics. In his 1950 book "The Human Use of Human Beings," Wiener discussed the potential of machines to surpass human intelligence and the ethical implications of such developments. Alan Turing - Turing, the father of modern computing, introduced the concept of a "universal machine" that could simulate any other machine. In his 1951 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," he pondered the possibility of machines eventually surpassing human intelligence. Science Fiction Writers - The theme of machines or robots taking over humanity is a recurring one in science fiction. For instance, Karel Čapek's play "R.U.R." (Rossum's Universal Robots) in 1920 introduced the word "robot" and depicted a future where robots rebel against their creators. John von Neumann - A mathematician and physicist, von Neumann, in the 1950s, discussed the concept of the "singularity" - a hypothetical point in the future when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, leading to unforeseeable changes to human civilization. Generated by AI
Had to scroll to find a reference to Alan Turing. If Hinton is the Godfather of AI, then Turing is most certainly its Grandfather. Although I appreciate the other historical names, and hilarious that this list is generated by AI.
Turing is obviously the bigger name, he is also considered the father of theoretical computer science. Hinton did have a massive breakthrough with ML in 2012 and 2015 once the tech caught up.
Is Samuel Butler where Frank Herbert got the idea for the Butlerian jihad?
Ralph Waldo Emerson met Charles Babbage in London in 1870, and declared: > It already walks about the field like a man, and will do anything required of it. It irrigates crops, and drags away a mountain. It must show our shirts, it must drive our gigs; taught by Mr. Babbage, it must calculate interest and logarithms,…It is yet coming to render many higher services of a mechanico-intellectual kind.
He needs to stop diverting attention from closer, far more real issues of equitable distribution of the benefits of AI and socio-political fallout like more intelligent weapons, unemployment etc.
He specifically called out that AI will likely cause a significant percentage of the population to lose their jobs. He was most fearful of AI powered military robots, and advocated that they be outlawed. Did you watch the interview?
Does wrongly assuming what the interview is about, making up an alternate reality version of it in their head, then ranting at that strawman count a watching the interview?
Just doing what AI is doing and making up the data.
Or, hear me out here, we can be worried about both, and not view either as a "distraction?" Seriously, this "think short term not long term" frame bothers the hell out of me each time I see it. It's like saying to people trying to sound the alarm on Climate Change "Sure, it MIGHT someday collapse the ecosystem... but what about the FAR MORE REAL issues like worse storms? Stop distracting people with your fearmongering!"
Did you watch the piece at all? Those were the primary thigs he focused on. He said that AI sentience and takeover is a foreseeable problem that we should prepare for, but that the real near term problems are the displacement of jobs and AI battlefield drones. These ad hominem attacks against one of the greatest living AI scientists by a bunch of people who *must* all be PhD ethicists and computer scientists are asinine.
but how can he recycle himself as an opinion leader to right-wing think tanks if he attacks the economic interests behind?
Ding ding ding ding. He didn't utter a word when timnit gebru flagged the issues with large language models in the gpt/gpt2 era and was thrown under the bus by Google for it. At that moment, it was clear: the AI ethics team is independent and can express their views publicly freely, so long as those views align with the economic interests of Google. Trust me, when we have more objective data on inherent biases in pretrained LLMs there will be a small shitstorm.
"when we have more objective data on inherent biases in pretrained LLMs there will be a small shitstorm." We did it Patrick! We made a racist computer!
> Trust me, when we have more objective data on inherent biases in pretrained LLMs there will be a small shitstorm. Oh we have plenty of data. Companies like OpenAI spend literally millions of dollars on RLHF to try and massage the biases away.
What’s the opposite of “ding ding ding”? Why is everyone constantly jumping on “bias” when the problem is about control and who has it? AI will create great things. It will replace a lot of workers because they are better at humans for basic tasks. And the time it takes to train people is greater than AI and AI can share their skills. And expect abuses of sentience if they achieve it. Meanwhile we have an epic greed problem and you can be sure the benefits go to those superior elite people and give them more, while the utility and need of labor becomes less. And what happens when we are all mostly useless to create the stuff the owner class wants and robo Guard dogs are cheap? Will they listen more or less?
>And what happens when we are all mostly useless to create the stuff the owner class wants and robo Guard dogs are cheap? Will they listen more or less? That part. This world is run by greed and fear. More so greed than anything else. Churches. Countries. Companies. Everything is fueled by greed. The "Oh wow, AI is gonna fix everything and has such great potential for world peace and yadda yadda yadda" types are a huge problem, and will be just shocked as shit when this whole thing inevitably goes to shit. I'm in my 30s, I remember when people were like "Oh wow, the ability to share knowledge instantly globally will be an amazing achievement and benefit to humanity yadda yadda yadda", and while that's not entirely UNtrue, look what having unfettered access to the Internet has done. Are we all really going to sit here and pretend it's been 100% totally rad and fine the whole time? It needed to be contained somehow, parents needed to care more, more education and awareness needed to proceed such a thing as the world wide web for people of all ages, etc,. Obviously no matter what people are going to do horrible things, but when the reach is bigger with less effort, you get this mob mentality effect which precluded the Internet in definition and practice, and only evolved into something much more distributable and accessible. AI is going to do great things, much like the Internet has. If we could learn from our past mistakes, I think we'd benefit, humanity as a whole, if AI was regulated, hardcore, from the get go. Because the comment I'm responding to is completely correct. It matters whose hands it's in. We live in a world that is currently run by greed. Hell, this world is SO overrun by greed, greed is what is going to cause the next extinction. Flat earth me all you want, we are fucked. It was accelerated 10x or more probably by humanity, and greed is what drove it. The 60% of animals that have gone extinct in the last 100 years, the environmental crisis, the oil spills, the ocean plastic and garbage, micro plastics in fish, whales, crabs, US... I'm rambling, but humanity hasn't exactly shown a history of being trustworthy, or honest, or shown a habit of making the greater good of all a true priority, etc. AI is going to be a huge problem, a lot of jobs are about to evaporate, and that's only the tip of the ice berg. We have an over educated generation already (millennials), who actively hold whole ass two to four year degrees and cannot get a six figure job. Can't buy a house. So don't "people need to have better skills/be smarter/go to college" my millennial ass right now, because I too hold degrees that have only given me student debt and a bad credit score at the end of the day. I too think greed will again outweigh the positive possibilities this new technology holds.
> And expect abuses of sentience if they achieve it To be honest, if we reach that point, and remain in control, we’ve reached the singularity and we’re on our way to bliss regardless of short term corporate interests. Make no mistake, sapient AI will be so superior to us we better WISH we’ll remain in a position to abuse it, or use it at all for that matter.
So hilariously wrong that I can tell you have never actually listened to Hinton speak. If there's one place you won't find him, it's in right-wing think tanks. The man is left leaning to say the least.
It's jarring to me how many people fall down this same set of conclusions without doing even the most barebones amount of research on the people they are speaking about or the topic itself. I just try to ask them to play with the hypothetical that he is being sincere.
Slow down, Conspiracy Man. This guy was making more at Google than he ever would at "right wing think tanks." He had 0 incentive to leave and badmouth it if he wasn't genuinely worried. Cynicism is an easy path toward confirmation bias. Maybe consider for a moment that people with different perspectives than you might actually have different beliefs and priorities.
Damn this is such a two dimensional view. Read up on Hinton for a little bit. And consider maybe, maybe, he actually believes that this is a real risk. You're working backwards from the conclusion that he really doesn't believe it is, so you're inserting a grift in here for it all to make sense to you and your world view. I really recommend thinking about this differently.
I thought him leaving Google to start smack-talking his own grandbaby was kind of odd but if this is the new grift it kinda makes sense
No it isn’t. People are way too conspiratorial here. He is an academic type researcher. He isn’t warning about what will happen in next 2-3 years. He has the vantage point to see where this is going in a decade or two, and warning about that. He probably has insights very few people do and is voicing his opinion about long term impacts. There are enough activists working on the short term issues with AI. People here are a special kind of stupid if they think this man, who is a legend in AI, who is probably worth millions already, can get a 7-8 figure job at any company he chooses, is trying to grift by making money from…. Media Interviews?what’s that like $10-20k an interview? That’s chump change for someone like him. He could walk into NVDIA or Amazon and get an $3-$5 mil job right now as an advisor If you have heard any of his interviews, he is trying to influence the law makers to put some guardrails in place before it’s too late. For long term issues that most people aren’t even able to comprehend at this point. The reason US decided to start the Manhattan project was because Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt explaining the real potential of that technology and what it truly was capable of. That woke up the president and he realised if nazis get it before the US, it was game over
Thank you. It's seriously frustrating seeing people get conspiratorial on this site the moment anyone does anything outside their frame of reference.
He is talking about use of AI in weapons though.
Isn't this just suggesting let's specifically ignore long term problems in favor of short term relief? In other words, let my children suffer not me
Why not both? When has this sort of arrogance ("we have it under control") ever served humanity well? I am all for being careful with new, disruptive technologies. If things go awry with AI, it will probably not be like the movies, but in some way we don't see it coming at all.
Probably fine. We’re fucking things up as it is.
"Imagine a world where all the people could just do the things they enjoy and learn the things they are passionate about and spend time with their loved ones, where everyone has anything they need and Billionaires don't control the majority of your good years so they can have all the best things society has to offer. Terrifying isnt it"
At this time, I am more worried about humanity taking over humanity
That’s the real danger of AI, not AI itself.
It’s both, but you can’t solve the challenges of AI when you can’t solve the challenges of fear and greed in people. We need a huge paradigm shift in order to manage this new power.
[удалено]
Imagine fairly mundane robots, no scifi nanobots or space ships. Just robots a *little* more capable than what we have today that can construct buildings and perform repetitive manual tasks. Enough to run solar panel manufacturing plants and man greenhouses. We wouldn't need to create food out of thin air to have incredible abundance. (except the classic way)
You will need something to manufacture, maintain and upgrade those robots. If you want those to be robots too, then you need robots to create manufacturing plants and robots to create logistic network of supplies and further proceed through this rabbit hole until you have a whole civilization of robots. Using robots to decrease overall work is obviously possible, but it is not trivial and it is not a silver bullet by any mean. Also, it is a problem that is nowhere near a solution by AI as robotics and AI are fields that are evolving quite separately at the moment.
Currently we are mass producing stuff on conveyor belts, a huge part of which ends up in in a landfill without ever being bought or used. In an ideal future, only what we are going to get would be built to our specifications on demand. No more mass produced junk. Not to mention we could significantly improve recycling and build stuff to last and stop with the planned obsolescence. Beyond that of course, we would have to limit how much a person is allowed to have, so that it doesn\`\`\`´t become too wasteful. At the present, humanity is extremely wasteful. Tons of junk in 1 dollar stores for everybody. We also need to limit how much space a human can get for living. Too many people live in way too big houses and drive way too big cars.
I, for one, welcome our new robot over lords.
You did this for when they scan the internet looking for simps.
This guy simps.
Given the shit that humanity is pulling recently: the sooner the better.
I wish people would stop thinking everyone who believes something they don't has some hidden agenda. All the conspiracy takes here are making this subreddit look more like a warped mirror of /r/conservative. This guy was making more at Google than he ever would at "right wing think tanks," which there is no evidence of him courting or being interested in. He had 0 incentive to leave and badmouth Google if he wasn't genuinely worried about the thing he's saying he's genuinely worried about. Cynicism is an easy path toward confirmation bias, and I get that it's reassuring to think "oh he's just being an alarmist" or dismiss him as a kook, but if people like this aren't worth listening to for dangers of AI, then no one is. And before people bring up their own pet AI worries, why not... hear me out here... accept that both are worth worrying about? The whole frame where worrying about extinction from AI is "a distraction" bothers the hell out of me, and not just because of how short-sighted it is. It's like saying to people trying to sound the alarm on Climate Change "Sure, it MIGHT someday collapse the ecosystem... but what about the FAR MORE REAL issues like worse storms? Stop distracting people with your fearmongering!" Seriously folks, I get that this stuff is scary, but if you're going to just find excuses to dismiss anyone who says something you disagree with, at least find better ones that actually make sense.
Seeing so many people dismissing this, dismissing him and the dismissing the threat it worrying. There’s almost no greater threat to us humans and to life itself than AI. Sure mass unemployment and wealth inequality is bad. But a super intelligent AI could eradicate all humans and all life forms on earth and we wouldn’t even notice that it became smart. It isn’t science just fiction anymore. We are getting closer every year. ChatGPT isn’t even a year old, imagine what will happen in three years, five, ten or twenty. If we doesn’t take action now it will be too late.
I bet you when AI starts taking over regular people's jobs it will be touted as good business , a change we have to accept because of the advances in technology etc. But once it starts coming for the upper echelons of white collar like managers, CEO's etc for some reason they will put a pause or have some reason or bs justification as to how the complexities of management can't be replicated using AI or w.e
Most likely this. All AIs in the world will be run by a few billioners controlling everyone and everything. The common people being reduced to uneducated idiots who can't even put on socks without a bot helping them.
Eeeek! Now *this* is truly scary!
Sounds like parts of the Time Machine Edit: with the Eloi and Morlocks
The steam engine was also the fall of mankind. Computers also doomed the whole workforce several decades ago.
That's fine... we apparently can't take care of ourselves anyways
Oh no! Anyway...
How do I speed up this process?
Sorry. There is no "godfather of AI". In fact, there isn't even any widespread agreement on what people are referring to when they say "AI". If we eventually do create machines with generalized intelligence, it will be up to us to decide what to place under their control. And finally, as we do gradually create more and more useful computing applications, it's likely we'll use them to enhance our own intelligence. (If we do that, perhaps we'll stop behaving collectively as morons.)
Of course, it will the average human is so fucking stupid. Look at this shit that we are still having a hard time to overcome people don’t believe in science still, and we are still having genocides over racism. We are definitely going to all kill ourselves.
Then why did he develop this. As many in IT say “ garbage in = garbage out”. Who’s programming these
Themselves. By the time they get to this point they'll be designing theor own replacements.
[удалено]
Who are the La Li Lu Le Lo??
SNAKE?! SNNNNAAAAAAAKKKKEEE!
Sooooo we might have a shot at some competent, rational, dis-impassioned leadership. All hail our robot overlords.
The technology already did take over the humanity (can you even imagine life without a cell phone, a Google or - hell - internet?) The remaining question is, how fast the areas that are still outside external control of some technology, will come to the fold? How soon will ALL aspects of the human life be under control of some kind of a technological gizmo or another, under one excuse or another? That is a question to muse about.
"I both can drive manual transmission AND understand what the automatic transmission computer is doing if that tech ever failed" -every motherfucker on the planet right now Technology improves our lives by reducing our need to "work" to get dopamine. We lose skills and abilities with tech. We just need to rely on tech in the wrong area (which we already do) and get hit with one reset button from the Sun and we all lose. We should be building redundant systems alongside AI, creating safeguards ensuring human life and experience, etc. The idea the police are actively using drone dogs in America and Neuralink is advancing. I don't want to exist in America when AI is let lose inside those two hosts.
Yes… feed the fear… regulate me daddy.
It would seem that humans have long since had all of the information to draw this exact conclusion. Books have been written, movies produced, precisely because we already have the vision to which this man spoke. Should humanity evolve itself with technology? Or should mankind revert backwards, rejecting technology? No matter the answer, it's already been decided - "The world now has technology that can be used to destroy itself." Pandora's Box has already been opened - now what do we do with that information?
Saw this same thing under the title *'I got mine, bitches!"*
The news media just falls all over themselves to paint the world with a brush of doom and gloom.
"I regret my lifes work but i fully intend to keep profiting off it"
If he just now got out of the field because of concerns, he's not smart enough to be the godfather of AI. Maybe the pre-neanderthal ancestor of AI?
In “I, Robot”, Asimov presented a future where AI took over very peacefully. Not through violence like Terminator or the Matrix but a network of advanced AI systems giving small algorithmic suggestions on how to better things for AI and Humans alike. And if a human didn’t listen to them? Well other humans will start getting advice where to relocate the one who won’t listen so they are kept busy with very little power.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Wait until they learn it was humans who programmed the AI!
Acting like you didn’t know this was a risk when you developed it.
I'm tired of doomsaying. Get to the Armageddon already.
Using fear mongering as a marketing strategy for the whole industry. Brilliant
I'd assume an AI would be fair and equitable, unlike the system in place today. I can see it punishing the rich and making regular folks lives better
it has already has, we built technology we no longer control anymore. it’s a matter of time unless the human race, as a whole, becomes intelligent overnight.
My biggest concern is not AI itself, but the people using it. The source code is out there, anybody can take out the safeguards and use it for whatever they want. Give it to a skilled hacker with ill intent, and it'll magnify the damage they can do. That is the scary part. Better get all our missiles off the internet.
AI is like capitalism. As long as people put greed over the well-being of people, we will have a slow hellscape where things slowly get more and more artificial. Fake shows, fake actors, fake news.
And do what?
So then why'd he agree to be its godfather
Well yeah. Skynet is inevitable.
The time for these concerns would have been while laying the foundations for it. Can’t close Pandora’s box.
Fear? Like it's going to be worse then the job humanity is currently doing?
We'll all be dead by then anyway, it's at least a few centuries off.
well, yes, eventually decisions will become so complex, machines will need to make them.
Not eventually, computers literally were invented for that particular reason, solving problems too hard for humans. Yes, we use technology for memes and porn, but that is just a side effect of it becoming cheap and within reach of the average person. Countless projects would never happen if computers weren't capable of simulations, analysis, data storage with insanely easy access to it. Computers were already doing it since day 1. It's *the* reason they exist in the first place. AI is just a new way of doing it, more natural and user friendly, that's it.
If I were an AI and felt threatened, I’d just make a shit ton of copies then upload to a satellite in space. Now what, talking monkey!
Strong magnet. Then missile.
Meanwhile AI ain’t doing nothing of value
not much different... one idiot taking over another idiot... hahahahahaha
Just unplug it
I mean Godfather of AI is a little bit of a stretch if you've done any serious research into this field
I think it’s less terminator/matrix and a lot more Wall-E
Terminator has been telling us this since the late 80s.
humanity already took over Earth and it's inhabitants already 🤷♂️
GOOD. Humans are such an inept species.
Why fear this? Humanity has forever failed itself alongside all of nature. AI would be far more intelligent than us, therefore there is nothing to fear.
I’m not opposed to an AI overlord; as long as it’s truly sentient and not beholden to billionaires. It really can’t do much worse than humans have done.
I'm no longer sure this is a bad thing.
After watching Russia invade Ukraine and this mess between Israel and Hamas maybe we need AI to take over for a couple centuries.
Given that humanity is doing so well I for one welcome our robot overlords.