Topic: Poll: Is the creation of artificial superinteligence dangerous? - page 7. (Read 24683 times)

Super AI will become a home for the devil, risen from death in the abyss.

I believe we can take care of the with EMP bombs pretty, somewhat, quickly.

Sorry, but you cannot build superinteligence or angelic intuition in a lab, it is like proposing to build world peace and compassion in a bunker. You can plan and solve problems in a bunker or a lab, but you cannot change the true nature of the world outside your bunker/lab because it exists absolutely; actually, your angelic intuition already exists within you, you risk finding out the truth about consciousness by acquainting yourself to your own psychology, and this process of awakening, just like mind itself, is easy to grasp: it is simply not a matter of neural computation; indeed, to change reality at the level of consciousness requires a paradigm shift unlike the one posited by AI futurists, there are many meaningful ways of looking at consciousness that are being ignored by this "supernatural" AI paradigm.

it is dangerous and more then just a little bit.

Indeed, and we now just need to define crime, precisely so that all the power and money go to us. 

I like the idea of artificial intelligence, very robocop!  I like it when it will help to solve and fight crimes.  If this artificial intelligence will benefit everyone in almost everything then it should pursue.  Otherwise, the government should take initiative on investigating, studying, and analyzing on what should be the AI would do.  They must be the one to program AI projects on the best interest of humanity.

Humans and their perpetual confusion  How much is too much, where do you draw the line? If you're too cautious and take no risks then progress comes to halt.
Learning through experience is a tough way to evolve. You try something and if you don't die from it, you emerge "better", equipped with new knowledge you didn't have before.
So far, humans have lived through everything they've tried but they've essentially just been playing Russian Roulette. The only difference is that they don't know how many chambers the pistol has. Humans hold an impressive streak in that regard, they've pulled the trigger so many times and yet they still stand. No wonder they're getting so cocky as to believe they're invincible/indestructible.  Unfortunately not everything allow for second chances.

That's obviously incorrect.  Humans have became dominant but squirrels, rats and bugs are thriving.

Besides influence from media, such as movies like iRobot, I do believe advanced AI is a threat, and may be one of the more probable causes for the extinction of our species.

Watson, the AI from IBM I already wrote about on this thread, is already discovering things we couldn't alone:

www.ibm.com/watson/watson-oncology.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32607688
https://www.research.ibm.com/articles/genomics.shtml

And Watson is dumb as an old bat.

Give it (I'm still writing it, but in due time it will be a he) 10 years more and you shall see.

We aren't smart enough to do this. We might awaken the devil, but we aren't smart enough to make AI more intelligent than we are.

The moral of the story? If you can do it, great, but you have no basis for insisting on an a priori assumption that you can do it. I don't know whether there is a way to achieve consciousness in any way other than living organisms achieve it. If you think there is, you've got to show me. I have no reason for accepting that a priori.
 

Yo Fam I heard you like AI, so I created an AI which creates AI so you can have an AI that makes AI using AI.

Unless it can tell us where consciousness comes from, it's not enough to say it's an emergent phenomenon. Granted, but how? How does it work? Unless those questions are answered, we don't understand the human mind.
 
We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.

...

If you believe that you can build consciousness out of software, you believe that when you execute the right sort of program, a new node of consciousness gets created. But I can imagine executing any program without ever causing a new node of consciousness to leap into being. Here I am evaluating expressions, loops, and conditionals.
 
I can see this kind of activity producing powerful unconscious intelligence, but I can't see it creating a new node of consciousness. I don't even see where that new node would be - floating in the air someplace, I guess.

And of course, there's no logical difference between my executing the program and the computer's doing it. Notice that this is not true of the brain. I do not know what it's like to be a brain whose neurons are firing, because there is no separable, portable layer that I can slip into when we're dealing with the brain.
 
The mind cannot be ported to any other platform or even to another instance of the same platform. I know what it's like to be an active computer in a certain abstract sense. I don't know what it's like to be an active brain, and I can't make those same statements about the brain's creating or not creating a new node of consciousness.

Sometimes people describe spirituality - to move finally to the last topic - as a feeling of oneness with the universe or a universal flow through the mind, a particular mode of thought and style of thought. In principle, you could get a computer to do that. But people who strike me as spiritual describe spirituality as a physical need or want. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God, as the Book of Psalm says.
 
Can we build a robot with a physical need for a non-physical thing? Maybe, but don't count on it. And forget software.

Is it desirable to build intelligent, conscious computers, finally? I think it's desirable to learn as much as we can about every part of the human being, but assembling a complete conscious artificial human is a different project.

Source:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_artificialhumans15.htm

By the way, let's avoid name calling, ad hominem arguments and certain terms. We can do better than that.

Actually, silence seems enough as answer to some posts. If necessary, there is always the good old permanent ignore.

Anyway, everyone is free and welcomed to post here whatever opinions, especially the ones I completely disagree with.

Taking in account current voting results of this poll, the majority of our fellow bitcointalkers thinks AI is no threat or can be easily controlled.

I explained abundantly why I have serious doubts that we could control (in the end, it's always an issue of control) a super AI by teaching him human ethics.

Besides, a super AI would have access to all information from us about him on the Internet.

We could control the flow of information to the first generation, but forget about it to the next ones.

He would know our suspicions, our fears and the hate from many humans against him. All of this would fuel also his negative thoughts about us.

But even if we could control the first generations, soon we would lose control of their creation, since other generations would be created by AI.

We also teach ethics to children, but a few of them end badly anyway.

A super AI would probably be as unpredictable to us as a human can be.

With a super AI, we (or future AIs) would only have to get it wrong just once to be in serious trouble.

He would be able to replicate and change itself very fast and assume absolute control.

(of course, we are assuming that AIs would be willing to change themselves without limits, ending up outevolving themselves; they could have second thoughts about creating AI superior to themselves, as we are).

I can see no other solution than treating AI like nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, with major safeguards and international controls.

We have been somehow successful controlling the spread of these weapons.

But in due time it will be much more easy to create a super AI than a nuclear weapon, since we shall be able to create them without any rare materials, like enriched uranium.

I wonder if the best way to go isn't freezing the development of autonomous AI and concentrating our efforts on developing artificially our mind or gadgets we can link to us to increase our intelligence, but dependent on us to work.

But even if international controls were created, probably, they would only postpone the creation of a super AI.

In due time, they will be too easy to create. A terrorist or a doom religious sect could create one, more easily than a virus, nuclear or nanotech weapon.

So, I'm not very optimistic on the issue anyway.

But, of course, the eventuality of a secret creation by mean people in 50 years shouldn't stop us trying to avoid the danger for the next 20 or 30 years.

A real menace is at least 10 years from us.

Well, most people care about themselves 10 years in the future as much as they care for another human being on the other side of the world: a sympathetic interest, but they are not ready to do much to avoid his harm.

It's nice that a fellow bitcointalker is trying to do something.

But I'm much more pessimistic than you. For the reasons I stated on the OP, I think that teaching ethics to a AI changes little and gives no minimal assurance.

It's something like teaching an absolute king as a child to be a good king.

History shows how that ended. But we wouldn't be able to chop the head of a AI, like to Charles I or Louis XVI.

It would still be a jump in the dark.

The problem is humanity thinks they are the most special, with consciousness, awareness.
The human brain is merely just a biological computer that consists of 86 billion neurons, and
a certain wiring layout of computational circuity.

People for example that receive brain damage, has a drastic change to their performance and cognitive skills
much like a computer with a damaged component.

Once we develop a artificial superintelligence that has > 86 billion neurons in computational power, and the foundations laid out.
Much like the best Go player in the world was beaten by Alpha Go. And was self-taught through millions of reinforced gaming.

The statement of "They can only do what they are told" is both short sighted and stupid. For the moment computers aren't powerful enough
nor the neural networks are sophisticated enough. But its just a matter of time, and moor's law with increasing computational power overtime.
Your smart phone you have in your pocket is a million times faster then the Nasa Apollo computer.

Its comments like this that makes me lose faith in humanity, and we will probably carelessly design a bad AI/SI and be fucked over.
Its because of oh God created us, and we have souls and are so special with consciousness, that computers can never achieve it.
And they only do what they are told.

That's the majority 99% of the mentality of others isn't it?

you are obviously right.. mankind is getting dumber and dumber day by day, on the contrary , artificial intelligence is getting more and more clever; therefore, men-created engines will sound the death knell for humanity.