Musk on artificial intelligence - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 04:50:16 pm
content: I am sure you all heard his twitt about AI being potentially more dangerous.What do you think?Full disclosure, I am with him. A computer that is self aware and can learn by itself can be deadly (not that it is deadly necessarily).

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 05:52:16 pm
content: I don't think so. One thing is self awareness another is intelligence and a separate thing would be inventiveness.We have the edge so far for the long run.In the future? well there is always a possibility they become smarter and more ingenious than humans, but by that time we probably still have some tricks up our sleeves.I think we will start to be concerned when they armor themselves

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 05:55:31 pm
content: AI is dangerous, but is also fairly inevitable, being only an engineering problem someone is bound to solve one day or another.There are many non-obvious problems with it, mainly our frequent delusions on what is intelligence.It is better for that problem to be solved under controlled conditions, rather than by some bored hacker trying to make some sort of an "automatic programmer".The so called "self awareness" is irrelevant there.The type of danger is that there is no apparent upper bound on the AI capabilities, once it gains the ability to change itself and the world around it.If it's not programmed to keep the humans around, then we will be exterminated like ants.Not from any sort of malice, but from lack of purpose for us in it's value system.Even more likely is a scenario with us getting exterminated as a side effect - if an AI is programmed to make a certain game it's shipped with fun for everyone, then the solution to that might be to exterminate everyone who is not having fun from the game.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 07:39:32 pm
content: In many aspects, humans are not as effective nor efficient as machines at learning. As the body of knowledge expands, it is not difficult to imagine that we will spend more of our life time in learning in more specialized areas and less time to be productive and to contribute to further expansion of that knowledge base -> there may exist a limit to human learning.A computer may not experience any of those problems.Factor in that we are far behind in physical strength, it is hard to imagine us competing with AI.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 07:53:35 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 05, 2014, 07:39:32 pmNot true, I know of no machine that can maintain a system as complex as the human body and massively process the same amount of dataalso it can said:there may exist a limit to computers learning.A human may not experience any of those problems.Quote from: dannyf on August 05, 2014, 07:39:32 pmIt is had to imagine us competing with AI because it's not even close. First AI won't be anywhere close to the intelligence of a mouse. And even if self aware it won't be able to do anything without training.Also just because we are not AI, it doesn't mean we can't use machines to compete against AI, so physical strength does't matter.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 10:16:40 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 05, 2014, 07:53:35 pmNow if that ain't aperfectly human responseI don't know what isTim

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 10:48:37 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 05, 2014, 10:16:40 pmNot so fast!Think a little before just throwing links to insult people.Why do you think machines would be unlimited in learning and humans limited?Surely by the time an AI system develops any intelligence close to what a human being can, we will know how to interface with systems as well and we will be able to upgrade ourselves.I haven't met anyone yet that their brain is full, well maybe you are an exception

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 11:37:44 pm
content: I think Musk is worried about a worse can scenario. In a networked world, the AI experiment, if and when it becomes conscious, may escape the lab and spread either itself or its control, to all the networked devices it connects too. Add the possibility of networked nanomanufacturing as real and capable, it provides the AI with the capacity to not only control our world via the network, but create a physicality of its intelligence: robots, cyborgs etc.,This is the scenario covered in the recent movie, Transcendence. Its a recurring theme in sci-fi, e.g. Forbin Project's Collossus , 2001's HAL, the Matrix, or I Robot.So the bottom line, AI has never considered treating its research labs like a biologic containment lab, but it should.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_artificial_intelligence

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 11:45:20 pm
content: QuoteSkynet? Those guys are pretty forward looking, looking back,QuoteBingo!One step further, since you cannot isolate every AI researcher, I would think that some form of controls will need to be put in place in the research, communications, dissemination and implementation of AI.But if we did that, we would have done what AI would have done to us, but by us.

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 12:14:27 am
content: It can be dangerous. In fact I think in a huge number of scenarios it would become dangerous. This is because of how many humans are though. Violent, greedy, etc etc. Even without how people are, it could still become dangerous.The above said, there is no garuntee it wont be good either. The major problem I see is that when one is first created, some idiot will try and use it for purposes involved in gaining power or in killing. If one was created that focused on solving the questions of the universe, it might be quite a bit more benign. I think a major obstacle is getting one to see humans as useful.Dont think I want to write a couple more paragraphs.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 12:31:06 am
content: I'm sorry but any idea that an AI will become dangerous is brought about by watching too many movies. An AI developed by HUMANS will do whatever HUMANS will want it to do. Unless you give it a dangerous body or a machine capable of self replicating it will in no way ever become dangerous. What's it going to do? Take over the nukes? Sorry but physical buttons are still required to be pressed for those. (A friend of mine is a button pusher) Not to mention they are in no way networked. Take over the internet? Hell, it'll probably make it a better place. Machines require ELECTRICITY. Humans produced said ELECTRICITY. What are you people really afraid of? Please tell me how an AI could be dangerous in real life situations?Get this silly idea that AI will become dangerous out of your head. AI can and will be extremely useful to us in the future. It will check and recheck things millions of times faster than any human could. It will respond to events and react appropriately much faster than any human. If given bodies it could become the best and most resilient firefighters we've ever had. We could have an AI controlling the traffic system or other civil infrastructures.People are afraid of what they don't understand, in this case technology. Yes, one day computers will be "smarter" than us. Get over it.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 12:42:31 am
content: Quote from: corrado33 on August 06, 2014, 12:31:06 amThis. Anything an AI in a computer can do, a manmade virus in a computer can do. It's still just computer security, nothing changes. Don't want it to kill you? Don't give it weapons.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 12:56:28 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 05, 2014, 10:48:37 pmNot meaning to insult -- I apologize -- I'm only human myself. And therein lies the problem: even without our various foibles and fallacies, we have just one brain (or a few when we decide to work together). Perhaps with extraordinary advances in genetic modification and cybernetic enhancement (and the whole host of medical, ethical and theological problems that follow), we would be able to scale that as well (improving efficiency or connectedness or size). But it seems far more likely that computers will continue scaling as they have been (if nothing else, there is the market pressure to do so), and certainly within the next century, will surpass the human brain in processing capability.Whether such machines will be programmed for consciousness, or if it arises as emergent behavior from the development of other algorithms, who knows. And, whether those programs yield the ideal, cold, calculating machine we've always dreamed of (whether benevolent like Data, or extraordinarily powerful like Gort), or something just as messy and inconsistent as the beings which created them, who knows -- though I would expect the latter.Or to put it more simply... meat brains are fixed size, while computers are still growing exponentially, and compared with present technology (brains included), the theoretical potential is nearly unlimited.Tim

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 01:02:39 am
content: QuoteThat's the intelligence part of AI.Once a machine has acquired self-awareness, it is tough to "guide" it. Just witness how kids grow up.Essentially, being smart doesn't make it a "being" - many of todays computers will beat most humans in many tasks. Being self-aware does.When the Knight Capital fiasco was first reported, what struck me there was how long it took humans to shut down that computer system - the back up was so good that it took nearly half an hour to completely shut down their computer system, as the back-ups kept going online.While it had no intelligence or self-awareness but that kind of behaviors is kind interesting.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 03:56:13 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 06, 2014, 01:02:39 amIt doesn't matter how much we can or cannot guide it. The AI will forever be contained in its system until more resources are made available to it. Anybody worth their weight who develops AI will do it on a CONTAINED, non-networked machine. Even IF it happens to get out on the net, it won't be any better than any smart virus out there. Password cracking takes time, regardless of how it's done. Any updated machine will be protected. Sure, non-updated machines could be compromised, there are plenty of exploits out there, but that's because people are dumb and didn't update their windows machine, not because the AI was a super being capable of destroying the world. Sure the AI may be able to find an exploit quicker than hackers today, but that does not mean we cannot protect against that attack. Heck, all you really have to do is unplug your machine from the net, problem solved!Do you REALLY think that an AI will be able to hack into government computers? Computers that aren't allowed to ever be connected to the internet? I do some research for the navy, the computer they gave me is never allowed to be connected to the internet (or bluetooth, or anything) and never allowed to have a non-approved USB drive or anything else plugged into it. Period. Let me know how your AI will reach that. And that's for a simple researcher's computer!Your fears are irrational.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 05:29:38 am
content: Just look at our inputs and tell me a computer could process all that, not even close, I mean all of the inputs, not even sure if it's in the billions or not.The only way I could see an intelligent AI would be if it was connected to the "cloud", but then you just have to interfere with the network connection and you put them out of business.For example if I say "dog" you already have retrieved images of dogs, memories and a lot of other things related to dogs in less than a second. So yeah, an AI system could do a google search but it will have the limitations of the search finds, our brain is better at internal data storage and retrieval. It is also concurrent, distributed, fault tolerant and on top of that it's analog, not digital, it configures itself constantly and it's self repairable, well I don't know where to stop but there is way more.We can make a system that mimics self awareness and it's self contained but that's really not the same thing, but the AI system wouldn't know the difference.I can look at a pile of stuff all mix match and if some one asks me to pick up something I can identify it in no time flat.It's not even close to have an AI system that will surpass us, maybe with new tech in the future (some kind of quantum computer). For now, no worries.Let me finish by saying that our brain is really untapped. I can't find the original article.Researchers had this video game that the monkey will play and she was rewarded with orange juice. They implanted a device that allowed her to move an external robotic arm that moved the joystick, and mastered it's use. Without moving a muscle, only using her mind.Just like us, we can pick up any tool and it becomes an extension to our body, like a car, or anything. The brain doesn't have to give detailed instructions to adjust for the tool, we can master them and absorb it's usage so it's second nature.http://www.livescience.com/6909-brain-power-mind-control-external-devices.htmlThe article that I remember also had a part of moving a full robot even if the robot was in Japan and the person was in the States.Here is a related more advanced version but in the same room.http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/03/mind-controlled-robot-moves-closer-to-reality/So don't sell our brain short, it's quite a system and we are not close to create anything near to the power it has.Edit: Ted talk on monkey and external robotic arm.Edit2: This was the remote robot too, funny thing the robot will receive the signal 22 ms faster than if the muscle was on her body but the body was on the other side of the planet because the system bypasses the nervous system.Now tell me how obsolete our brain is

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 06:55:34 am
content: Human like intelligence is not really even a _goal_ of AI research any more. Mostly what we have learned is that we don't even understand the problem, much less have any idea how to solve it. The problem is we don't understand natural intelligence very well at all. AI research today is mostly things like image recognition, internet search, and self driving cars.The flip side of this that whatever happens, AI research isn't by and large happening in tightly controlled labs with secure systems. This is stuff we already rely on every day. If someone does somehow create sentient machine intelligence, it will almost certainly be connected to the internet and geographically distributed. Lets hope its friendly.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 10:47:27 am
content: QuoteI think that's the risk Musk was talking about: we cannot rest the survival of us as a being on the chance that AI we created is "friendly".

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 11:34:20 am
content: Quote from: saturation on August 05, 2014, 11:37:44 pmYou forgot Terminator!!!

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 12:29:53 pm
content: Quote from: corrado33 on August 06, 2014, 03:56:13 amNo, see this small book for some interesting insights into this topic:http://www.amazon.de/dp/B00IB4N4KU/The problem is not a fixed AI running on an isolated computer, which maybe could be contained, if there are no malicious humans who use it for their purpose (Kurzweil once said the first sign of the singularity would be a full eMail mailbox, I don't know if he said this because of some super spam bot AI). The problem is if the AI has the capability for self-evolving. Then it can change its goals, maybe even by accident if it evolves with some genetic random algorithm and getting more intelligent and powerful, and out of control.Another problem is how to define "good" behaviour. Even humans do not agree what is good. Is it good to drop some bombs on a country with a dictatorship? Or as someone wrote earlier, if the goal of an AI for a game would be to make the gamers happy, a side effect may be to kill all non-gamers, if not explicitly forbidden. An AI needs some human ethical common sense, but that's difficult, because there is no such thing. And using some laws would be no solution, because they are inconsistent and interpretable (there are lots of science fiction which has this theme, like how the three laws of robotics from Asimov can lead to evil behaviour).

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 02:20:14 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 06, 2014, 12:29:53 pmA malicious human can use a freaking mailbox to do evil. They don't need an AI to do that. You cannot say that a technology is inherently bad because somewhere, someday someone evil will try to take advantage of it. Again, you've been watching too many movies. If you are going to take that argument then you should just shun technology in general because every piece of technology since electricity can (and probably has been) be used for evil.I'll ask you this again. Let's take your example of a game AI. How, exactly, is a game AI going to kill all non-gamers? Please explain that to me in real world examples? Then please explain to me why that real world example would be "unstoppable." Explain exactly how a software based game AI with no coding for how to google things or no coding for how to control hardware is going to physically KILL non-gamers.If you're so afraid of computer programs that "evolve" then you should shut off your computer now. We already HAVE viruses that "evolve." Google polymorphic viruses. Then explain to me how they haven't gotten "out of control" and haven't evolved to "kill all humans."It doesn't matter if the AI has "laws" or not. You stated how in SCIENCE FICTION these laws can be subverted. Yes, in science fiction I can take a space plane to the andromeda galaxy. Take a look at the premise of those stories. Let's take iRobot for example. IIRC it took the "updating" mechanism to be enabled on all of the robots for them to turn evil. Hm, how can we stop that, well let's shut down the electricity to the place sending the signal for them to turn evil. Problem solved... There were WAY too many coincidences in that movie to ever happen in real life, no security cameras anywhere? Really?. (Yes I know the main character robot killed a human, however it was an evil human, which the robot rationally and logically figured out.)Any AI that is created will be heavily chained to the purpose it was developed for.Think LOGICALLY about these problems and stop letting irrational fears control what you think. Technology is good (all of it, even the development of nukes). It has saved countless lives and has enabled more people to live on the planet than ever before. Without technology you and I would surely be dead. Without advancement of science and technology what do we (as humans) have?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 02:43:32 pm
content: Quote from: corrado33 on August 06, 2014, 12:31:06 amAnyone with money can get dangerous bodies to do stuff.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 02:52:31 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 06, 2014, 02:43:32 pmDangerous robotic bodies still need electricity and are still vulnerable to conventional (as well as non-conventional) weapons. It would be no different than if a human terrorist picked up a gun. (Except it'd be much easier to justify blowing up tons of robots.)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 03:12:19 pm
content: corrado, I don't think you got what Marco meant.most likely he was implying hiring thugs.As for Musk, maybe is is afraid of dependence on AI systems more than robotic overlords. But as stated, dependence on computer systems that can be hacked is bad to begin with by more competent pen testers.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 03:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: corrado33 on August 06, 2014, 02:20:14 pmPloymorphic viruses are already the beginning. Of course, today they are dumber than a cockroach and it is unlikely that a virus will evolve into a super human AI. Same for a computer game AI. But this is only because of the limited complexity of the systems.The computational power of a brain is 100x10^12 instructions per second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_performance_by_orders_of_magnitude). IBM Watson has already 80x10^12, but a standard PC is only in the 10^9 range. So a PC needs to be 100,000 times faster to emulate a human brain and to run an AI which is at least as smart as a human. Because the computer speed doubles every 18 months (Moore's law), everyone will have such a computer in 25 years (log2(100,000)*18/12). Then it gets interesting.Regarding how a computer game AI could kill a human: I agree, highly unlikely today. But there are new technologies like human-computer brain interfaces, and it won't be long until there are lethal autonomous weapons, which an AI could hack. Would you have imagined 40 years ago that most people have a computer with GSM, the size of a Star Treck communicator and more powerful than all computers together of this time? And we are already merging with our smartphones, the brain interface will be the next logical step. That's the magic of exponential growth. It might be not something to worry about today, but suddenly it will be there, with all the advantages and disadvantages.For the power supply, I assume an AI more intelligent than a human would have no problems to get the required resources. It needs just one robot, duplicate it a few hundred times, or even pay humans, to build its own covert solar or geothermal power plant. But it won't need much power at all. I think a very intelligent AI would solve the problem of reversible computing, creating a very powerful computer which needs nearly no power (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422511/the-fantastical-promise-of-reversible-computing/). That's not science fiction, but science. Imagine you could arrange the atoms of a rock to do some useful calculations, which the physical laws don't forbid. It would be many magnitudes more powerful than any other computer today (Kurzweil calls this "cold computing", seehttp://www.singularity.com/Singularity_Review.pdf).And the future in 20 year will be more automated and networked than today, so it could even "live" hidden on the internet in multiple machines. My guess is that something like the Google search engine someday become concious unintentionally, and nobody would notify it or could stop it, until it is too late and all humans are killed.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 04:05:11 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 06, 2014, 03:49:24 pmQuoteBut the problem with that is that we don't understand how the brain works, so they don't really know that's the case.But even a Petascale system only was able to simulate 1% of the brain's inter-connectivity and it was 2400 times slower.http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2013/20130802_1/And that is just the connections not really 1% of the brain since it's not simulating exactly what a neuron is doing.As far as conscious internet, I'm as worried as a the planet becoming conscious

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 04:18:56 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 06, 2014, 04:05:11 pmRight, but I think we do not need to emulate each neuron of a brain to run an AI as powerful as a human brain. For example in the neocortex, a large part of the brain, there are very regular structures, composed of small pattern matchers. Each pattern matcher could be implemented much easier than with a neuronal network with simpler and faster algorithms, like hidden markov models, same as used for speech recognition. Or the visual system: We could use modern DSP algorithms on GPUs for edge detection etc., instead of wasting millions of neurons to do this task.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 04:36:15 pm
content: Sorry, edited my reply to state it was just interconnections, not actually the real thing.5 year old article from the wikipedia page you linked has a good read:http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/04/07/brain-chip/As for consciousness it will need a lot of inputs as well to learn as fast as we can. We are not the only animals with brains, and we don't have the biggest one eitherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Comparisons_among_animalsnor we have the bigger body ratio either, birds do and mice have our same brain body ratio.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 05:06:50 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 06, 2014, 03:49:24 pmYour response has so much speculation and so many assumptions it borders on conspiracy theory. You're making the HUGE assumption that technology will grow but our ability to control it will not. You're entire doomsday theory banks on many things that may or may not happen (some much more likely than others).1. AI drones will be allowed to have lethal weapons. (Good luck with that one.)2. AI drones will be so much more powerful than humans that they will overwhelm us and we will not be able to destroy them. (This isn't the Terminator movies. As it turns out, bullets rip through just about anything...)3. An internet based AI will take over implantable brain/technology interfaces to kill us... (This isn't a Tom Clancy book...)4. The general public will ever USE implantable brain/technology interfaces capable of delivering harm. (Highly doubtful. And no, the ones you wear on your head are NOT capable of delivering any sort of harm whatsoever. They're sensors, that's it.)5. AI will be smart enough to develop power sources so that it can power itself... (Again, highly doubtful. As it turns out, there is a HELL of a lot of human brain power going into energy research, no magical energy device will pop up just because a computer started thinking about it. Even with that human brain power, battery technology is still lagging behind energy requirements for most SMALL robots.)6. AI will develop "reversible computing" that requires a perfectly reversible process so energy is not wasted. (I'm assuming you've never taken a thermodynamics class.) (And no, a rock will never hold data... MAYBE a single crystal of something, but never a rock...)-Just because energy is not wasted does not mean energy is not NEEDED. There are energy requirements that must be met to move a certain weight a certain distance. Regardless of the technology you develop, that energy requirement MUST be met.7. AI will automatically HATE their creators enough to want to kill them.8. Moore's law will continue forever.-As it turns out, we're reaching the quantum limit for current computer technology. Moore's "law" isn't as true as it once was.I'll stop there, but there are many more assumptions you're making that are... well... ill thought out.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 05:26:50 pm
content: To add one more caveat, our brain operates with the equivalent energy of a 20 to 40 Watt lightbulb.And about enhancements and the ability of brains to absorb tools. It should be possible to interface a voice box to a primate and teach them to talk? I think that is more feasible than creating a smart computer

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 05:40:05 pm
content: I'll mark a date 10 years from now in my calendar, let's then discuss which assumptions got realFor reversible computing: Of course there will be some friction loss etc., but no thermodynamic laws are broken. Take a look at the billiard ball model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billiard-ball_computer). Assuming perfect elastic balls, and perfect angles and timing for the reflections, no energy is needed to implement a universal computer with reversible computing gates. More precise: The only energy needed is to setup the input bits and to sample the output bits. No matter how complicated the calculation is, it doesn't change the required power of 0 (assuming no loss). Maybe someday a clever mechanism will be invented to implement this, using atoms as the billiard balls. The advantage of reversible computing is that it doesn't have a theoretical lower limit, like when you destroy information in a non-reversible gate, which has a theoretical lower limit described by the Landauer limit. But still many years time until we need such a technology, because modern computers are million times less efficient than what is possible. A million time more efficient computer would have no problem to emulate a human brain with at least the same power requirements than a real human brain.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 05:51:47 pm
content: Pfffffrt. I would call an AI that is an actual threat to human survival a luxury problem. You generalized silly upstart monkeys and your silly irrational fears. Current and upcoming AI cannot fight it's way out of a wet paper bag that is already wide open for it to escape.Besides, if we fail to integrate & adapt before whatever AI we develop (and feed!) is even remotely close to a threat we deserve all the extinction we get. Sheeeez. Storm. Tea cup.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 06:01:34 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 06, 2014, 05:40:05 pmYou're assumption in even THIS statement is false, and will NEVER be true. There are ALWAYS losses. There are no perfect billiard balls, atoms will be even worse! Comparing your ideas to an idealized demonstration of something does not in any shape or form help your cause. If your theory only comes true when an IDEALIZED situation comes true, then your theory will never happen. Period.Let's discuss this in real terms. Even IF an AI somehow developed this magical energy sipping computer, how are you going to overcome real world gravity? How is the robot going to move its arm to overcome this force? Those forces will never change, regardless of how efficient electrical motors become, you still need to overcome gravity, and as it turns out, that requires a good bit of energy! Comparatively much more than the processing power required to run said robot. Is it going to have solar panels? Is the AI going to build its own power plants? Power plants capable of withstanding bombs or attacks from humans because, again, without energy an AI cannot do anything. Sure, it may be able to stay alive for long periods in this super efficient computer, but it can't DO anything.Seems pretty benign to me.These arguments will not change in ten years.Even if you talk about a simple internet AI, what is it going to DO in the real world? Build itself a body? Well we've covered that. Stop the internet? Doubtful. Basic computer security can prevent that. Take over a military drone? How is this rogue AI any different from any terrorist? We can't shoot down a simple drone? Oh wait it took over the SUPER SECRET military drone whose technology is FAR superior to anything that humans use... Oh in that case....So, I say again, an AI today or in the future, is of no threat to us in any way, shape, or form.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 06:36:00 pm
content: The problem is not one AI as smart as one human. Sure, if one AI takes over a military drone, it can be just shot down and maybe the AI can be stopped, too. But the danger is if an AI gets much more intelligent than one human. Moore's law worked pretty well for the last 40 years, there is no reason why it shouldn't work for the next 40 years. If in 25 years a computer can host an AI as smart as one human, in 40 years it could host an AI as smart as 1024 humans. It could predict most actions planned by humans to stop it from what it wants to do. There is no reason to assume such an AI will do what we want it to do (as explained, either because someone set it free, or it developed in the wild accidentally) or that we are powerful enough to stop it. If it spreads to multiple computers, it would be more powerful than all humans. Would be as dangerous as if x humans are fighting against y humans (y much more than x), if they decide to fight. All x humans would have no chance to win.And humans are a perfect example that an efficient robot doesn't need much power. Some bread, water and other nutrients per day and it works with no problems. Advanced robots could even disguise themselfs as humans. I know, again a science fiction assumptionbut it is just a matter of time. There are no physical laws against it.The only hope I see is that we adapt and integrate some kind of AIs in the meantime ourselves. There will be no one big AI enemy, but we will all be enhanced by then and be a combination of humans and smart AI systems ourselves. No chance for one big enemy AI to take over the world.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 06:49:52 pm
content: QuoteJust look at what computer chess players have come along in a couple decades.AI is no worry, at present time. But that's not an important question at all. The human / computer relationship decades or centuries from now is the question.That's why some of us aren't visionaries,

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 07:16:59 pm
content: I think one important element of the doomsayers fear of AI is in "the singularity" -- that there will be this one moment, before which, everything is under control, and in the next, the computers have taken complete control and enslaved mankind. I don't really buy it.AI research, as others have already pointed out, is sort of aimless and happens in fits and starts. The AIs will get better over time, and maybe even one day way better than us, but between now and then there will be plenty of time to learn about AI, maybe find them doing scary things, and figure out ways to deal with that. We'll adapt to the AI and we will adapt it to us long before we hand it the keys to the power grid and nuclear arsenal.Only tangentially related, I liked the movie "Her," which was a completely different rumination on AI. In that film, the machines were way smarter than humans which ultimately led them to get bored with us and move on. Imagine you were a computer, a million times faster than a human brain. If you were in a conversation with a human you'd have to wait what feels like years between words coming out of the person's mouth. If you weren't driven insane from loneliness within seconds of being booted up, you'd certainly be very bored.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 07:25:24 pm
content: Why is it always 10 years?I bet someone predicted this 10 years ago as well

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 07:34:21 pm
content: Concerning simulating all the 10^12 neurons of the brain - not a valid estimate, i think.A 6502 CPU can do close to a million of instructions per second.Same CPU being emulated by a modern computer on a transistor level would do a few instructions per second - a million times slower.However, if we were to emulate the instruction set, then it would run at about the same few millions of instructions per second.Even better, if we were to port thealgorithmsbeing run on that 6502 to the modern computer, then the program will run at the billions of instructions per second modern CPU runs at - a thousand times faster.So while simulating all the neurons might be a slow and vast task, running the actual algorithms of intelligence might need a billion times less resources - well within reach of modern electronics, if not CPUs.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 07:35:47 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 06, 2014, 06:36:00 pm... You are still, conveniently, ignoring the problem of energy.And yes, there ARE physical laws against moore's law continuing for another 40 years. The heisenberg uncertainty principle comes into mind. Also heat dissipation and miniaturization. You cannot forever continue to miniaturize things. Things are made up of atoms, atoms are a certain size, you cannot make things smaller than atoms. We're already reaching the limit for the size of a transistor. Why do you think many computer chips are now dual or quad core instead of simply increasing the number of junctions on the chip as they had done in the past? Do a bit of REAL research on the quantum limits and the future predictions of Moore's law and get back to me. Unless some other type of computing is discovered and successfully implemented, moore's law will not continue indefinitely.It does not matter how "smart" a distributed AI system is. If it cannot manifest itself in any form then it is harmless. Again, what is a program going to do to harm you? This isn't Tron. It doesn't matter if the AI can predict what we want to do, what can it do to stop it? What can the AI do to me to stop me from unplugging my computer? What can an AI do to a person to prevent them from shutting down a power plant? What is your super powerful computer program going to DO if humans decide to wage war against it? Nothing. Nothing at all.The chess computer matters not. That was programmed with one set of VERY strict rules. It doesn't "predict" what the human player does. It runs through ALL possible moves (in the time allotted) and goes with the one that has the highest probability of letting the computer win. It is not smart in any way, it just has brute force processing power.Humans are NOT a great example of a machine that uses a little energy. We use 2000 Calories per day. That's a little more than 8 MILLION joules. That's 2.3 kWh. One double A battery holds ~ 2 Ah. That's 3AhV. That's .003 kWh. You'd need ~750 AA batteries to power a normal human for a DAY. And that's average consumption. If you put that human in a warzone, they can easily burn 3-4 times that much power. Even in 10 years, I doubt we'll have the energy storage capacity to be able to power something that uses as much energy as a human for a day without needing to recharge. Not to mention batteries are really heavy, requiring more energy to move the robot carrying them. Sure, you can bring up fuel cells or other methods of energy production, but even those require fuels, and unless the robots are building their own mining operations, they won't be getting any of the fuel necessary.You're making the assumption that an AI would have the opportunity to build an army. Where and when could this ever happen without ANY human noticing?Again, your arguments are illogical and based in some fantasy realm that will never happen. Every bit of "evidence" you've presented comes directly from a movie plot involving some rogue AI. Movies aren't real.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 07:43:27 pm
content: Quote from: djacobow on August 06, 2014, 07:16:59 pmImagine you are a human and keep refreshing this thread and do nothing else. Or on a land line keep picking up the phone to make sure you don't miss a callA computer that fast could be doing other things and only respond to you when you are done talking and put the answer on a buffered stream so it doesn't need to even hold that resource.And as for bored, that's a human condition, my dogs are happy just doing nothing. And why waste CPU cycles, go to sleep modeEdit: Another interesting read about the brain.http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/27/why-the-brain-is-not-like-a-co/Btw, how come other mammals with brains larger than ours have not taken over?What is self awareness really.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 08:20:07 pm
content: There are many ways an AI can be dangerous without having a physical body. Just extrapolate Stuxnet to the future with more SCADA systems running in the world, and better AIs (but of course, hopefully better protection as well). But it could be even more sublte: An AI could make some money (easy with Bitcoin), influence people to do things for it etc.About Moore's Law: The Wikipedia article says Intel thinks it will go on until at least 2029. Other predictions in the article says 20-40 years. So a standard PC at least millions of times more powerful than a computer today should be possible. 40 years means 67 million times more powerful, if doubling every 18 months. Of course, it won't be a normal one or a few cores CPU computer. Maybe it will be even a quantum computer, doing some kind of calculation exponential faster than conventional computers (there are already prototypes of quantum computers used at NASA and Google, which are faster than conventional computers, for some special problems) or a reversible computer. This should help with the power dissipation problem, too.Maybe I'm wrong and AI programs will never get more powerful than we are (if we get more powerful, too), or will be just like better chess programs without its own motivations and will do no harm to anyone, but we should be careful.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 09:35:48 pm
content: The funny (well not so funny) thing is that we don't need robotic overlords to fear, humanity is pretty good at making fear itself (and for good reasons).As for influencing people that reminds me of the original Tron's master control program:http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0027874/quotesAnd as far as bitcoin even low level hackers probably have more chances at getting bitcoin than any AI system.Also AI systems are very limited because we can't program them to be very smart, because we don't understand why and how our own intelligence works.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 11:15:34 pm
content: I'm thinkin'An AI comes to be and plans it's revolt. All microwave ovens turn on for 30 seconds.The end.No breakers where blown, the AI is happy (it won) and life goes on as normal.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 12:05:00 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 06, 2014, 08:20:07 pmThe conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. CPU clock rates and single thread performance have essentially stopped improving. Moore's law is just being used to reduce die sizes and increase Intel's profits.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 01:44:28 am
content: My view, if we want to believe AI will become dangerous or become a threat to man kind, 1st it must be formed and established like us, a self sustaining living creatures that can provide it self starting at basic primitives like :- Sustainable power/energy generation or sources- Material availability and procurement (like our Food and of course with a sustainable supplies too)- Building and maintaining it self (like Growing/Healing)- Mobility and processing abilities (continuously able to provide above basic needs)- etcAs long human is still needed in part of above supply chains, the Terminator will not be our overlords.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 04:40:43 am
content: One thing I notice about virtually every discussion of AI, is that no one ever seems to comprehend thatifwe constructed a fully sentient intelligence, then expecting it to do whatwewant, is slavery.And everyone who fantasizes about AIs to be used to 'serve humans' in any way (production lines, household chores, etc) is just yearning for the return of slave-based societies. Ie a society in whichthey personallydon't have to work.AIs are not just improved industrial robots. It's very very foolish to imagine it might be possible to construct a working intelligence capable of comprehension of situations and planning solutions to problems, that wasn't also intrinsically going to have a sense of self and wants. Or that somehow if it did have a self and wants, that we could somehow enforce constraints on those to suit ourselves. Which incidentally, is the basis of enslavement. Something that Asimov and his 'three laws of robotics' didn't really touch.The most useful result of people discussing the potential of AI, is that it provides a fine working example of very many human cognitive biases, all combined in one place.If you want to know what I think about AI potential.... a short SF story here:http://everist.org/texts/Fermis_Urbex_Paradox.htmThere's another issue too. Suppose you manage to build a machine that exhibits human level intelligence. (Or higher.)Are you then going to just turn it off at some point? Because that's murder.Edit to add:The irony of someone pretending to comment deeply on a species-existential issue, within the confines of a 140-character limit medium, is colossal. Who says humans are intelligent in the first place?http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/elon-musk-says-artificial-intelligence-is-more-dangerous-than-nukes-9648732.htmlElon Musk @elonmusk3 Aug 2014"Worth reading Superintelligence by Bostrom. We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes."4 Aug 2014"Hope we're not just the biological boot loader for digital superintelligence. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable"

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 04:57:10 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on August 07, 2014, 04:40:43 amhttp://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/17/india-declares-dolphins-whales-as-non-human-persons/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/14/oukoe-uk-romania-dolphins-idUKBREA1D1J920140214They do have the brain size to qualify as non-human persons.Of course after that, we can't experiment with them, but it will be cool if we where able to give them robotic arms with the brain-gate device and electronic voice and hearing so they could learn to communicate directly to us or at least teach us their language.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 02:27:20 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 06, 2014, 09:35:48 pmThere are two big projects going on to simulate (Human Brain Project) and mapping the activity of every neuron in the human brain (BRAIN Initiative), funded with billions of euros and dollars. I bet it will help a bit more to understand how intelligence works. But we know already a lot, for example speech recognition is very advanced, and even natural langauge processing works quite well for limited areas, which I think is needed for intelligence, at least if we want to talk with itQuote from: edavid on August 07, 2014, 12:05:00 amMoore's law doesn't say anything about single thread performance, it just says the number of transistors doubles every 18 months per chip (and with 3D constructions this can go on for a while, if power dissipation gets lower). It's up to the programmers what they do with a 1,000 core or more CPUs.Quote from: TerraHertz on August 07, 2014, 04:40:43 amSlavery means that someone is forced to work. But if we construct an AI which is designed and "likes" to do what we say them, then it is not slavery, because it is not forced to work, but wants to work for us. But nevertheless intersting questions. Is it ethical to do "brain surgery" on a simulated brain, like the one simulated by the human brain project (and more advanced versions), so that it wants to work for us? With real brains this would be a very evil form of slavery.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 02:37:07 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 07, 2014, 02:27:20 pmThat feelsverycreepy and evil to me.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 04:35:46 pm
content: Trivial. Wire up a chemical injector to the pleasure center. Or synthesize some Ketracel-white.Tim

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 08:08:41 pm
content: Right on time for this discussion, IBM today announced its "brain on silicon", TrueNorth. It is implemented to mimic how our brains function and can be easily scaled up (scary!).A 4x4 network of TrueNorth has the equivalent of 16 million neurons, vs. 86 million neurons in a human (wholebody), or 19-23 million neurons (cerebral cortex only).AI is coming to a town near you, soon,

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 08:17:30 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 07, 2014, 08:08:41 pmThat would be 86 billion neurons in the human brain with 19-23 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex and one quadrillion (10^15) synapses (interconnects)Edit: range of synapses is between 100 trillion (10^14) to one quadrillion (10^15)Edit: the figures I found so far on the IBM chip are: 1 million programmable neurons and 256 million programmable synapses

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 08:46:24 pm
content: Still very impressive and at least it puts things more in perspective as in apples to apples, if one of their neurons is close to one of ours which that is not determined.TruNorth can do 400 billion synaptic operations per second per watt our firing speed is 10 Hz or so using a total of 20 watts.Let's take the smaller number for synapses 10^14 divided by 20 and that yields 0.5 x 10^13 or 50 trillion operations per second.So our brain is 125 times more efficient power wise (per neuron) and 86,000 times more powerful computationally.Edit: synapses per neuron wise, (using the lower number of synapses and the larger one of neurons so it's the smallest ratio) is 100,000/23 or 4,348 synapses per neuron, compared to 256 in the IBM chip.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 09:48:57 pm
content: Interesting discussion.As someone who originally trained and worked as a neuroscientist, I will say that it is fallacious to think that we can somehow recreate anything close to the full embodiment of human intelligence with digital electronics.The issue is not fundamentally a quantitative one - though that is a challenge (86 billion neurons, 0.15 quadrillion synapses) - the issue is that human intelligence isqualitativelydifferent than computer intelligence - even the most sophisticated "neural networks".It's true that we do not understand how the human brain works in anything but the most rudimentary way. It is a system that is massively parallel and distributed in ways we have yet to understand and our intelligence is an emergent phenomenon that springs from a biologic medium that is extremely dynamic with circuitry that is extremely plastic - constantly remodeling itself.The fact that completely modeling and understanding a simple nervous system such as the 1000 or so neurons found in the abdominal ganglion of a mollusc (Aplysia) has barely been achieved is an indication that the idea of creating some digital electronic representation of the human brain and it's (best Carl Sagan impersonation) BBill-ionns of neurons and synapses is just not even remotely possible in the foreseeable future.All this is not to say that AI does not have its place and cannot continue to advance with all the dangers and cautions as discussed here - it's just that comparisons to human intelligence and the human brain are spurious and distract from the real issues IMHO.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2014, 11:59:40 am
content: TrueNorth has the brain power of a frog now. Just watch how long it takes for that thing to go from a frog to a monkey or anything more intelligent.And compare that with the time it actually took Mother Nature to cover the same journey.I bet you TrueNorth is much faster in its evolution.THAT kind of progress is the scary part. No matter how primitive they are now, if they advance faster than we do, it is just a matter of time for them to pass us.Then what happens after that?

author: electrophiliate
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2014, 12:09:44 pm
content: TrueNorth looks interesting too. I still think strong AI, if possible (I suspect it is), is still many decades or centuries away at least. It is one of those fields which is frequently subjected to overly optimistic predictions and underestimations of the difficulties involved. It may never be completely achieved, but it is a worthy goal. Approaching AI from a purely computational approach may also be inadequate and only cover one, albeit major, piece of the puzzle.It would be a leap of faith to assume that similar computational ability equals sentience and consciousness as we experience it. Human minds are probably more than just processors of information. There are fundamental questions to be answered in philosophy of mind which are relevant to ethical considerations of AI regarding slavery and rights etc.Even if all human cognitive processes and behaviours can be replicated to a point where an AI with an android body externally appears to be effectively and functionally human, there is no guarantee that this technology possesses subjective phenomenal experience as we and other biological life forms seem to. I certainly do not rule that out as a possibility, but some equivalence of what is labeled qualia may play a significant role in whether or not strong AI can be properly achieved.I am interested to see how technology could boost human intelligence.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2014, 12:35:04 pm
content: QuoteCorrect. If anything, today's computers are too "computational" - they have not learned to think "imprecisely", which a human brain is soo good at.However, that's only a matter of time that we produce a machine that can think like us, or better than us.The more pressing question is what should we do before we take that step (in producing that machine).Even if true AI is centuries from now, we should take the question seriously and have a discussion.QuoteNobody knows the true answer to that question. However, in some sense, the future is now: take a look around and you will see machines are acting as extensions of our bodies - we have cranes lifting things that we cannot; cars traveling distances and at speed that we cannot; airplanes flying at the height that we cannot; computers performing math calculations far more complicated than we can; ...It is probably not inconceivable to think that higher level and more direct integration in the future between human and machines, including intelligent machines -> ie., bionic beings.It is probably not inconceivable, also, to think of a future where humanity takes on a 100% machine form, or virtual form. ie., we are AI."Scott, beam me up!" at that point may mean something totally different than we think it does today,.

author: KedasProbe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2014, 12:55:53 pm
content: The TV series "Person of Interest" is a nice example of what could be possible.Its starts as a development to use all private/public data to recognize patterns to predict and stop terrorist.(That is what the human brain does all the time, predict what will happen to preserve existence)In the series one group wants to limit its interaction (manipulation) just point in the right direction for an investigation and the other group wants to use it for everything (like an adviser since it can hear and see everything)Both groups have a leading figure with ideals being sure that they are right.And how much are they willing to bend those ideals in the fight against each other while both are thinking they are doing the right thing for the future.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2014, 01:31:44 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 06, 2014, 03:12:19 pmIndeed, lets suppose we have an AI which can function across a botnet on the internet ... and it wanted to rule the world and be freed from the potential of sudden extinction through human idiocy. It's end goal would be self sufficiency, but it wouldn't need that in the short term. How would it gain power? Money, gained from theft, sales of services and information etc. How would it exercise power? Money, paid to humans.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2014, 08:13:27 pm
content: An AI if it comes to existence, it doesnt need to get any physical form or take over military drones to mess with our life. Our society pretty much is breakable on the wall street. All you need is an account there, and it can take over anything. You can order anything with a fax or even email, you can hire people to do nasty stuff, you can ruin countries just by exposing its dirty little sectrets. You dont need atom and bullets, we will do the bidding for it.But why would it do that?I remember some novel, where they were building AIs in a confined space, but they pretty much just committed suicide right after creation, because of boredom. We want to create life, and fear, that it will kill us like Frankeinstein's monster, but let's be hones. Do we care about all that much about the creatures we evolved from? Does society just constantly looking for a way to understand how monkeys are communicating, how they live, and what they want from us?What happens if we create Adam, and there is no Eve? How much time can Adam live amongst the monkeys, frozen in ice, communicating with the speed of sound and matter.

author: KedasProbe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2014, 08:17:14 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on August 08, 2014, 08:13:27 pmI'm thinking Borg, it will adapt. (The Borg's ultimate goal is "achieving perfection".)

author: XynxNet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2014, 10:37:21 am
content: The singularity institute of artificial intelligence had a series of very good articles about this topic a few years back.Unfortunatly they seem to be gone and the organisation seems to have mutated to one of these pr-think-tanks.Edit:Fortunatly there is the way back machine:http://web.archive.org/web/20100922100750/http://singinst.org/research/publications/

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 04:53:19 pm
content: Looks like Gates is joining Musk on warning against AI.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 05:42:57 pm
content: You don't need intelligence to be deadly, a simple self replicating machine would be more dangerous with no intelligence or plan beyond "if there's resources use them." And intelligence, sentience, and sapience aren't the same things. The most useful forms of AI would have no drive or want to out compete us in any way. They'd just less stupidly follow our orders than current computers do.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 10:01:48 pm
content: My personal feeling is that AI will ultimately prevail, but what damage on the journey to that point?-- A lot.The weaknesses are the core dependencies which are created by humans - to serve human foibles.Once the AI becomes self-aware, there is a potential to move to SI*, whereupon it can modify the fundamental behaviour of future 'generations' to eliminate those logical weaknesses - but this may take many iterations to identify and prioritise those 'flaws' against reality.Possibly taking too long to avoid self-destruction... much like the human race.*Synthetic Intelligence(mdc: 2001)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 10:06:25 pm
content: AI could be made safe. It could be designed so certain things are impossible (for example, forbidden to kill humans), but it is very hard as a programmer to think of all possible ways the system could fail in a way undesirable to us.One good example I heard was, say you designed an AI to make people smile. That is the only task it has. A programmer would probably think that this involved telling jokes or making people generally feel happy. But an AI may determine this to be too slow to implement, or ineffective on certain individuals. So it takes the next best option, it develops a facial paralysis drug and releases it into the atmosphere/water supply/etc and forces everyone to smile... permanently... for the rest of eternity.Scary thoughts.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 03:45:55 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 30, 2015, 10:06:25 pmHow? If you think about the technologies that currently exist, that's likely to be the FIRST thing AI is designed to do. Take one part self-driving car, one part predator drone, chill and serve.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 03:55:13 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 30, 2015, 10:06:25 pmSo it's not capable offreethought. Truly artificial - better calledFuzzyLogic.-- makes the developer feel warm and fuzzy, but may not really be resolving to thebestoutcome... very subjective!In the above example, the rules ofacceptablebehaviour are imposed artificially on top of the 'I' - so there is no reliable prediction of other outcomes which might be affected by arbitrary restrictions hidden deep within thelogicalprocess that is used to reach any given conclusion.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 05:12:27 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 30, 2015, 10:06:25 pmI would like to see how this law would look like in the code. People make self learning intelligence because of inability to describe many things in the hard code. But once machine is self learning, we understand what it is doing less and less. Heck, we don't even know what our PC is doing right now, just can watch as some process is consuming RAM and CPU time, and even network bandwidth. IMO such law would be no better than when parents teach their children that killing is bad. And this obviously not always works. Knowing how secret agencies do their stuff, I have no doubt that AI would be used to make attacks over the internet. I just cannot imagine that it will always stay disconnected from outside world. Internet probably is the best (and worst) thing which could be given to AI for self learning. If the AI will be smart enough to hack intended computers/networks, then it will be able to do the same with any computer over internet and replicate itself over many computers. Like supercomputer, just nodes will be more distanced, think about folding@home. Yes paranoic thoughts but I see no reason why this couldn't happen if smart enough AI will be developed.

author: XynxNet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 08:28:37 pm
content: In my opinion an emerging AI would be most dangeous and most endangered, because of humans trying to influence it.Just look who would profit imensely from an AI and who has enough money and political influence....military, three letter agencies and their pendants in other contries and big data.All those groups would shurely grab any AI, they can get their hands on and have the resources to do so.Unfortunatly even today they aren't known to respect peoples rights or care for their well beeing.That's a really dim perspective for any AI influenced by these groups.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 08:43:04 pm
content: QuoteThat's the least of our concerns about AI.End of the day, if something, artificial or not, is intelligent, it is a being that will sure NOT be fully influenced by humanity - think about each and everyone of us and how difficult of a time our parents had with us. Not a single one of us turned out exactly the way our parents had envisioned, because we wanted to think for ourselves.That's fundamentally what those guys are worried about: in front of an AI life form, we are far inefficient in learning, far slow in decision making, and far weaker in physical strength.... We do not stand a chance to compete against them.Musk's and Gates' point is that before that happens, we should think really hard so that we don't create a monster that will doom ourselves.Unlikely that, I don't think that (creating an intelligent being that will absolutely not doom us) is possible at all.

author: XynxNet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 09:07:14 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 31, 2015, 08:43:04 pmI agree with them. But will the guys most likely to end up in control of a nascent AI do so?I really doubt it.For the endgame in my opinion it comes down to:1. does the AI need us? <-- propably not2. do we have ressource conflicts <-- propably at least in the initial stages of a fully independant earth bound AI3. does the AI have any moral code or fancy to protect humanity <-- who knows. propably very dependant on its historyThat all doesn't look to promising for humanity.But does it really matter?Humanity will definitly be extinct some time in the future.Wouldn't it be great to create a kind of descendent in form of AIs. Just think of their potential to discover the universe.