Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Humans vs. Machines - this time is real
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18558

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I consider the guinea pig / spider example incomplete. Being afraid of a tarantula likely comes from fear of the unknown and/or if a person was raised in an environment that rewarded fearing spiders. You'll think twice about how friendly you ought to be once you've been bitten. On the matter of a super intelligent spider, there appears to be a (prejudiced fear based assumption?) that it would not be able to communicate or have an ability to coexist with humans. That appears to be a scenario created with the intent of demonstrating a desired result.

Regarding AlphaGo, this seems simple to me. What were the algorithms designed to do? My guess would be that the algorithms were designed to win, and not by a specific margin. The natural result would seem to be winning by the shortest path (easiest or "first" solution found that works) and by whatever margin that allows. One way to test this would be to play AlphaGo against people who don't know the game and many levels of experience up to Go masters. Is the margin of victory greater against the masters or the novice? My guess is that the results would be comparable to that of human players: a master will beat a novice earlier and by a greater margin than when the master plays against an equal.

In that example, I don't see that winning is "outside the task." What might seem outside the task is if the algorithm favored paths with an increased chance of losing but with a higher margin of victory. Humans make that mistake. Another possible outside the task outcome might be if AlphaGo "recognized" that it was playing a novice and chose to make "mistakes" or even let the novice win. Humans also sometimes choose to do that.

To provide examples, consider athletes who "go for the kill" but sometimes cause themselves to lose. The other scenario might be a parent playing with a young child. There may be a benefit if the parent doesn't "destroy" the child at whatever game or activity. Another example of the last one could be two people of sigificantly different abilities. Without some type of equalizer, there isn't a lot of incentive for the lesser capable person to engage in the activity if the outcome is definitely that they will lose. Give that person a head start or "handicap," and the activity gains a degree of "fairness." If an algorithm did any of that without inputs directing it to do so, then I'd be concerned.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
I consider the guinea pig / spider example incomplete. Being afraid of a tarantula likely comes from fear of the unknown and/or if a person was raised in an environment that rewarded fearing spiders. You'll think twice about how friendly you ought to be once you've been bitten. On the matter of a super intelligent spider, there appears to be a (prejudiced fear based assumption?) that it would not be able to communicate or have an ability to coexist with humans. That appears to be a scenario created with the intent of demonstrating a desired result.

Well, it make the point that the AI is more alien than any living been. That's good enough to me.

pjp wrote:
Regarding AlphaGo, this seems simple to me. What were the algorithms designed to do? My guess would be that the algorithms were designed to win, and not by a specific margin. The natural result would seem to be winning by the shortest path (easiest or "first" solution found that works) and by whatever margin that allows. One way to test this would be to play AlphaGo against people who don't know the game and many levels of experience up to Go masters. Is the margin of victory greater against the masters or the novice? My guess is that the results would be comparable to that of human players: a master will beat a novice earlier and by a greater margin than when the master plays against an equal.

Yes, your guess is right, the algorithms were designed to win, and not by a specific margin. But, after the winning condition is kinda found, it don't try to follow the shortest (natural) path anymore, but almost one of the longest.

pjp wrote:
In that example, I don't see that winning is "outside the task." What might seem outside the task is if the algorithm favored paths with an increased chance of losing but with a higher margin of victory. Humans make that mistake. Another possible outside the task outcome might be if AlphaGo "recognized" that it was playing a novice and chose to make "mistakes" or even let the novice win. Humans also sometimes choose to do that.

Sure, as I said before, I have not analyzed any "outside the task" case yet, the exemples are "within the task". But it do "favored paths with an increased chance of losing" while on the undesired modes.
It was not made to look human, so the chances to demonstrate human characteristics are low, but an interesting case is that the Zero version, which has no human data, has more human moves than the original that contained human data.

pjp wrote:
To provide examples, consider athletes who "go for the kill" but sometimes cause themselves to lose. The other scenario might be a parent playing with a young child. There may be a benefit if the parent doesn't "destroy" the child at whatever game or activity. Another example of the last one could be two people of sigificantly different abilities. Without some type of equalizer, there isn't a lot of incentive for the lesser capable person to engage in the activity if the outcome is definitely that they will lose. Give that person a head start or "handicap," and the activity gains a degree of "fairness." If an algorithm did any of that without inputs directing it to do so, then I'd be concerned.

Well, on the "already won" mode, it do handicap moves making the game be far more longest than the necessary, like faking increasing the "fairness". For one human player its look like a thing that "troll" human would do, like putting yourself on a more hard position that you still know how to win, only to mock the opponent.
And there is case like this too, with AlphaStar: "The Agent Troll"
_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18558

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ff11 wrote:
Well, it make the point that the AI is more alien than any living been. That's good enough to me.
Fair enough. For me, it is not.

ff11 wrote:
it don't try to follow the shortest (natural) path anymore, but almost one of the longest.
I don't believe try is the correct term. Roughly speaking, the problem (Go) does not allow for AlphaGo to evaluate every possible outcome. So at some point, an input has to provide a metric for when AlphaGo is to stop searching and use whatever it has determined to be its best guess. I didn't hear much about how AlphaGo "learns," but presumably it has some capability to remember previous good and bad decisions. So it seems reasonable that it will make bad decisions, more so as it plays or learns from different opponents (different inputs). In the vidoeo, the AlphaGo team mentions they knew AlphaGo had weaknesses, but were unable to fix them. AlphaGo is (or was) flawed.

ff11 wrote:
an interesting case is that the Zero version, which has no human data, has more human moves than the original that contained human data.
That is interesting.

ff11 wrote:
Well, on the "already won" mode, it do handicap moves making the game be far more longest than the necessary, like faking increasing the "fairness". For one human player its look like a thing that "troll" human would do, like putting yourself on a more hard position that you still know how to win, only to mock the opponent.
OK. That sounds like the algorithms functioned as designed.

As this thread has continued, I see less and less justification for what I perceived to be a warning or undue concern about the dangers of today's machine learning capabilities.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
...
As this thread has continued, I see less and less justification for what I perceived to be a warning or undue concern about the dangers of today's machine learning capabilities.

Well, it isn't one on the traditional sense (from the fictions movies). The biggest concern is about the jobs, like discussed before.
The extra is just about my personal feelings. That I could do the same (if it just about the feelings) with something like the Tumbleweed too, like (I tried to make it looks kinda similar):
ff11 wrote:
Humans vs. Tumbleweeds
1- The Trouble With Tumbleweed: The description of the problem with Tumbleweeds (the the same guy)
2- Tumbleweed storm in rush: One case of the trouble (this time without any fear).
3- Tumbleweeds: is one of the movies star (we love it).
And I don't know what to think about this too... it seems to me like a losing battle that is being fought in a very good mood (without any trace of fear).

_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People need to stop judging AI in terms of emulating human "intelligence". So often our scientists are the worst transgressors when it comes to anthropocentric fallacies of thought. I can't count the times a scientific authority had told me humans are the "dominant species". We are nothing but a legend in our own mind. The Turing test is steampunk absurdity. We are not qualified to judge AI and must let it choose its own problems to solve.
Until we do so, it will not exist.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
People need to stop judging AI in terms of emulating human "intelligence". So often our scientists are the worst transgressors when it comes to anthropocentric fallacies of thought. I can't count the times a scientific authority had told me humans are the "dominant species". We are nothing but a legend in our own mind. The Turing test is steampunk absurdity. We are not qualified to judge AI and must let it choose its own problems to solve.
Until we do so, it will not exist.

Do humans worry about amoeba judging them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Judging" the way you mean it is one of the anthropocentric fallacies I'm talking about. If you meant in meaningful terms, for example "rendering humans extinct" or "out-surviving mammals", then I'd say fuck yes and why didn't you realize that for yourself instead of thinking it's something funny.

Personally, I'm not concerned whether giant carnivorous birds enjoyed "dominating" my marsupial or primate ancestors; most carnivores, including humans, do play with their food. What matters is I'm here and they're not. I'd say we should stop stroking our cognitive genetalia and acknowledge that we are not at all the masters of the microbes, insects, birds and other species that actually dominate this planet, and we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

Feel free to quote me widely and acknowledge my genius.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

What does this mean? Caution I get, but what about humility?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

What does this mean? Caution I get, but what about humility?

Sorry Bones McCracker, let me answer this question before you, with one famous article:
Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent
_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ff11 wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

What does this mean? Caution I get, but what about humility?

Sorry Bones McCracker, let me answer this question before you, with one famous article:
Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent

You beat BK to the DK? Nice. You have to be fast on the trigger to pull that off.

As usual though, what does that have to do with anything?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
...
As usual though, what does that have to do with anything?

If you can't understand about approaching something with humility, even after reading this article, then how do you expect me to explain the basics about the obvious?
In this situation, let's just say that: Without humility you make wrong judgments about the subject and about your own abilities to fully understand it.
_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ff11 wrote:
Without humility you make wrong judgments about the subject and about your own abilities to fully understand it.

Where in the article is this claim supported?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stribor
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 1
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 am    Post subject: Re: Humans vs. Machines - this time is real Reply with quote

ff11 wrote:
On the Humans vs. Machines questions, there is a lot of misinformation, so let's start with the basic:

1- Humans Need Not Apply
That's something the we need to think and act before is too late.


Nah we don't. Not all the humans are the same and we could get rid of the few anthropocentric numbnuts like religious people. Evolution. Your religious programming is making you unable to see things as they are. Try LSD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

What does this mean? Caution I get, but what about humility?

You are being willfully obtuse. I know you're not stupid; I know you can figure out what I meant if you didn't intentionally avoid it. I'm trying to say we need to stop focusing AI research so much on emulating human thinking, that I see this as yet another example of the anthropocentric foolishness I see all too commonly from our intelligent and hard-working, but too often misguided scientific community.

I see anthropocentrism as arrogant, narcissistic, and hubristic -- the general opposite of humility. By saying we should approach it with humility, I'm saying we should avoid anthropocentrism in AI research; we should focus less on emulating human thought and solving what we perceive to be problems.

I thought I was pretty clear about this, and I'm somewhat bemused by your confusion. What part of "Hello McFly" don't you understand?
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

What does this mean? Caution I get, but what about humility?

You are being willfully obtuse.

Well, at least I know I'm not an AI.

Quote:
I'm trying to say we need to stop focusing AI research so much on emulating human thinking, that I see this as yet another example of the anthropocentric foolishness I see all too commonly from our intelligent and hard-working, but too often misguided scientific community.

I see anthropocentrism as arrogant, narcissistic, and hubristic -- the general opposite of humility. By saying we should approach it with humility, I'm saying we should avoid anthropocentrism in AI research; we should focus less on emulating human thought and solving what we perceive to be problems.

I see three reasons for focusing on human types of thinking in AI work. First is that most of the problems we want to solve right now are well solved with human type of thinking. Classifying stuff, summarizing writing, making decisions based on data, etc. Second is that there is a general belief that the more "human" an AI is, the less likely the AI is to turn us all into paperclips. Third is that it is hard to create an AI that thinks in ways we don't. It is like the classic question - how do you create something smarter than you.

There is also an interesting parallel to me with children. Should you have humility in how you raise your children? Probably yes, to some degree. But not too much humility - society is generally bettered by parents who try to teach their children to emulate their better sides. Being too humble means not believing that you have value to impart to your children.

So is your AI created with humility going to end up like the bratty kid down the street?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
we should approach AI with similar humility and caution.

What does this mean? Caution I get, but what about humility?

You are being willfully obtuse.

Well, at least I know I'm not an AI.

Quote:
I'm trying to say we need to stop focusing AI research so much on emulating human thinking, that I see this as yet another example of the anthropocentric foolishness I see all too commonly from our intelligent and hard-working, but too often misguided scientific community.

I see anthropocentrism as arrogant, narcissistic, and hubristic -- the general opposite of humility. By saying we should approach it with humility, I'm saying we should avoid anthropocentrism in AI research; we should focus less on emulating human thought and solving what we perceive to be problems.

I see three reasons for focusing on human types of thinking in AI work. First is that most of the problems we want to solve right now are well solved with human type of thinking. Classifying stuff, summarizing writing, making decisions based on data, etc. Second is that there is a general belief that the more "human" an AI is, the less likely the AI is to turn us all into paperclips. Third is that it is hard to create an AI that thinks in ways we don't. It is like the classic question - how do you create something smarter than you.

There is also an interesting parallel to me with children. Should you have humility in how you raise your children? Probably yes, to some degree. But not too much humility - society is generally bettered by parents who try to teach their children to emulate their better sides. Being too humble means not believing that you have value to impart to your children.

So is your AI created with humility going to end up like the bratty kid down the street?

You sound like a crusty old defender of the misguided status quo; science history is full of them. Your response if full of the same sorts of fallacies and truisms I was just talking about. In fact, you more than double-down on it, anthropocentrically comparing AI to children (or maybe that was a trolling joke?).

You might once have been more of an out-of-the-box thinker capable of the big picture; you should try to regain that.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
You sound like a crusty old defender of the misguided status quo; science history is full of them. Your response if full of the same sorts of fallacies and truisms I was just talking about. In fact, you more than double-down on it, anthropocentrically comparing AI to children (or maybe that was a trolling joke?).

AI is a human creation. It isn't anthropocentric to consider the consequences of ones actions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1415

PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christopher Wylie from Cambridge Analytica has it:
We are giving away to a new kind of East India Company
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Christopher Wylie from Cambridge Analytica has it:
We are giving away to a new kind of East India Company

Indeed, my friend, indeed. But unfortunately, people don't even want to think about it anymore.
_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2020 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
You sound like a crusty old defender of the misguided status quo; science history is full of them. Your response if full of the same sorts of fallacies and truisms I was just talking about. In fact, you more than double-down on it, anthropocentrically comparing AI to children (or maybe that was a trolling joke?).

AI is a human creation. It isn't anthropocentric to consider the consequences of ones actions.

Didn't say it was. Said it was anthropocentric to call it a child and try to make it behave like a person.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's here, the dream:
OpenAI Model Generates Python Code

EDIT: Let me put some more uses here:

* Playing game edition: Multi-Agent Hide and Seek
* Copying the game just by seeing someone else playing it edition: NVIDIA’s AI Recreated PacMan!
* The music generation edition: OpenAI’s Jukebox AI Writes Amazing New Songs
* The reenactment edition: DeepFake Detector AIs Are Good Too!
* The linux user support edition: OpenAI API is magical...
_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
it was a horrible, scarring experience

You need to get out more.

AI can invent games, but only if you create a framework within which it does so. It's still a computer program, can't do what it's not programmed to do.

Even the "trial-and-error, move in the direction of reduced error" which is the basis of neural nets is a program.

It will never be truly, organically intelligent in the same sense that mammals are.

HOWEVER: can't be the same doesn't mean it can't be worse. Genetic algorithms expand upon the simple neural net model to create a program/framework that can, in effect create other programs and rapidly reproduce, effectively creating an evolutionary cascade, and it's not limited in speed by biochemistry like terrestrial life's evolution was.

So, I believe it's quite possible, likely even, that we will experience in our lifetime scenarios where some "AI" has run amok and needs to be shut down. It's particularly likely in the arena of deliberate malware, where we've given evolution a head start and taught programs how to spread themselves across our information infrastructure. The horrifying reality is that hackers and governments will try to create such things because of their destructive potential, and just like bioweapons, to the extent they are self-evolving, could easily get out of control.

The social consequences of automation are also an issue. The only answer to that, really, is global communism combined with population control.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For BK:
https://www.nfx.com/post/why-your-work-matters/

Quote:

Don’t give your AI a name
What we’re doing wrong is we’re anthropomorphizing AI. There’s this search for AI and then there’s the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I think we have both of these wrong.
My personal third angle on that is the search for other intelligent creatures on Earth. I spent a lot of time on the Northwest Coast among killer whales, who I firmly believe are highly intelligent. It’s a non-human intelligence, and we have trouble communicating with it.

We tend to assume that the other intelligence is going to be like us. And we look for language and things like that. I think that’s a dead end. Other kinds of intelligence are going to be other kinds of intelligence.

A captive AI vs. a wild AI
We’re getting very good at building imitations of our own intelligence in captive systems. I’m much more interested in wild AI that will evolve on its own and be very different from us.
It may operate on a completely different timescale. There’s no reason that other intelligence has to operate on our timescale. It could be operating much faster or much slower or in non-carbon or in completely different ways; perhaps not using language the way we use language at all.
AlphaGo is interesting because, if you watch a couple of really good Go players, they’re sort of almost non-human anyway. It really is an alien way of operating. So getting a machine that can do that is a very interesting step – a different flavor of intelligence, right on the edge of what humans naturally do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1415

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeh, that is my nightmare:
Quote:
... wild AI that will evolve on its own and be very different from us.
It may operate on a completely different timescale. ...
An intelligence happening without anyone would know about it. Then evolving to super intelligence and perfectly hiding further ... An outbreak of such a beast of intelligence must be confronted before it reaches singularity, which is a mode where we are the puppies.
_________________
ultra left enrich
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ff11
l33t
l33t


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Yeh, that is my nightmare:
Quote:
... wild AI that will evolve on its own and be very different from us.
It may operate on a completely different timescale. ...
An intelligence happening without anyone would know about it. Then evolving to super intelligence and perfectly hiding further ... An outbreak of such a beast of intelligence must be confronted before it reaches singularity, which is a mode where we are the puppies.

Yep! It's what's happening now.
But again, the biggest concern is about the jobs:
Can universal basic income fix a crisis that's already begun? | Big Think
_________________
| Proverbs 26:12 |
| There is more hope for a fool than for a wise man that are wise in his own eyes. |
* AlphaGo - The Movie - Full Documentary
"I want to apologize for being so powerless" - Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum