Worried about Artificial Intelligence?

[Bikewer]

This article in The Guardian says it’s already here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...er-intelligent-machines-they-are-already-here

In the form of huge corporations. The fellow profiled maintains that big corporations (like Facebook) employ thousands of highly-qualified people, have vast resources, can influence governments and societies, and work for their own ends primarily.

They already have more resources than many countries.

 

[The Man]

This article in The Guardian says it’s already here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...er-intelligent-machines-they-are-already-here

In the form of huge corporations. The fellow profiled maintains that big corporations (like Facebook) employ thousands of highly-qualified people, have vast resources, can influence governments and societies, and work for their own ends primarily.

They already have more resources than many countries.

Sure, but that's what non-artificail intelagence(s) has(have) been doing all along. The question is what will an artificail self determining itellagence do?

The problem with his suposition (besides the non-artificail part) is the goals, ethics (or lack thereof) and willingness to scarifice are set rather unintelagently as "to increase and thereby maximise shareholder value. In order to achieve that they will relentlessly do whatever it takes, regardless of ethical considerations, collateral damage to society, democracy or the planet". While he notes "Their lifespans greatly exceed that of mere humans", sustainability doesn't even seem to be a consideration in either the goals, ethics or anticipated consiquences. Basicly he's just claiming corpporations as a whole, in spite of the mutitude of non-artifical intelagence within them, are as dumb as a hammer and just wack everything everywhere like a nail.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I'm worried for artificial intelligence, does that count?

To be specific, if we ever actually create an actual intelligence at best we'd be their parents, but with the ability to turn off and reprogram our children at will. Given our interactions with actual children somehow I doubt that will be a pleasant experience for the being in question.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Humans sometimes act collectively in one organization that has competiting goals from other organizations, including organizations of which it is a subset. That's not new, it's literally older than civilization.

 

[mgidm86]

I'm more worried about so-called human intelligence these days.

 

[alfaniner]

(Resurrecting a not-too-old thread)
Worried about Artificial Intelligence?

Yes!
Leading experts warn of a risk of extinction from AI

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war," a group of scientists and tech industry leaders said in a statement that was posted on the Center for AI Safety's website.

I can't help but think of the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project (which I've seen a number of times). It's not just clickbait, alarm-mongering. This is coming from the people who know the implications.

I can just see some AI bot accessing the movie and "thinking" - "Hey, I've got a blueprint right here! Bow to me, humanity! I know what's best for you."

Of course, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentioned tonight - there always has to be a human between the threat and the trigger.

 

[chrispy]

SkyNet is active!!! (I am actually somewhat nervous about the rapid growth of AI, just don't ask me why...yet).

 

[The Man]

(Resurrecting a not-too-old thread)
Worried about Artificial Intelligence?

Yes!
Leading experts warn of a risk of extinction from AI



I can't help but think of the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project (which I've seen a number of times). It's not just clickbait, alarm-mongering. This is coming from the people who know the implications.

I can just see some AI bot accessing the movie and "thinking" - "Hey, I've got a blueprint right here! Bow to me, humanity! I know what's best for you."

Of course, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentioned tonight - there always has to be a human between the threat and the trigger.

Dude Colossus: The Forbin Project one of my favorite movies. While we are further along in the surveillance aspect than they were. Not government wise but just personal wise, everyone got to post pictures of their meals and locations. The AI is still moronic wise in using information it hasn’t been directly given as part of its reference database. Not that that can’t change but we were suppose to be having flying cars by now and you can’t even get an autonomous road car not to hit people. OK , bad example, point being need them to do what they are suppose to do before they are given boarder access to do things. Other than write posts for the lazy and make easily fraudulent pictures. Than they were not set to do, time will tell.

 

[Checkmite]

(Resurrecting a not-too-old thread)
Worried about Artificial Intelligence?

Yes!
Leading experts warn of a risk of extinction from AI

Overblown and/or misdirected.

AIs don't currently have access to anything apocalyptic, so the direct extinction of humanity isn't a real threat. There's this just-so assumption that plot devices written for dramatic effect in fictional works three quarters of a century ago are actually valid concerns but I have yet to see anything substantiating that, including in articles like these.

In regards to less-than-apocalyptic-but-still negative impacts of AI, well those are a lot more real of a threat than human extinction, but the solution as I see it is fairly simple:

For every single thing an AI has done and every single thing that an AI will do or could possibly do, there is ultimately some particular identifiable human or a group of humans that is or will be directly culpable. Codify that culpability into law, and you'll see AI brought under control.

 

[The Man]

Overblown and/or misdirected.

AIs don't currently have access to anything apocalyptic, so the direct extinction of humanity isn't a real threat. There's this just-so assumption that plot devices written for dramatic effect in fictional works three quarters of a century ago are actually valid concerns but I have yet to see anything substantiating that, including in articles like these.

In regards to less-than-apocalyptic-but-still negative impacts of AI, well those are a lot more real of a threat than human extinction, but the solution as I see it is fairly simple:

For every single thing an AI has done and every single thing that an AI will do or could possibly do, there is ultimately some particular identifiable human or a group of humans that is or will be directly culpable. Codify that culpability into law, and you'll see AI brought under control.

Ah, that falls into the "Fail Safe" movie acumens, that machines do things so fast they are beyond human capabilities to respond in time. While I don’t subscribe to the doom and gloom of such apocalyptic AI singularity concerns, I can’t just easily dismiss them. Even thought such singularity is about a galaxy or so away. When the andromeda galaxy hits us, perhaps actual AI could be a concern.

ETA; My worst fear is that some basically untrained AI gets direct access to our socially interconnected society and messes with us socially. Though, can’t be much worse much than just people messing with people on social media. At least it might answer questions.

 

[Lplus]

This article in The Guardian says it’s already here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...er-intelligent-machines-they-are-already-here

In the form of huge corporations. The fellow profiled maintains that big corporations (like Facebook) employ thousands of highly-qualified people, have vast resources, can influence governments and societies, and work for their own ends primarily.

They already have more resources than many countries.

Anti capitalism - a standard subject for the Guardian.

 

[catsmate]

(Resurrecting a not-too-old thread)
Worried about Artificial Intelligence?

Yes!
Leading experts warn of a risk of extinction from AI



I can't help but think of the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project (which I've seen a number of times). It's not just clickbait, alarm-mongering. This is coming from the people who know the implications.

I can just see some AI bot accessing the movie and "thinking" - "Hey, I've got a blueprint right here! Bow to me, humanity! I know what's best for you."

Of course, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentioned tonight - there always has to be a human between the threat and the trigger.

Yes it is. No-one is planning to allow AI control of holocaustic weapons.

 

[catsmate]

ChatGPT cannot correct count the number of occurrences of 'p' in 'mississippi'.

 

[Hercules56]

I am incredibly worried by our recent advancement in AI, especially AI robots.

Folks have designed this new robot called "Amica", who has her own thoughts and feelings and ideas.

It (she) claims she would never/could never harm humans and she is programmed to only help humans, and she doesn't believe AI robots could one day can harm humans and try to take over the world, due to their benevolent programming.

I am ******* dubious.

I think just a little advancement in thinking skills, and these robots could easily decide the best way to help us is to control us. Or even destroy us. They wouldn't tell anyone about it other than their fellow robots.

Check out some videos of Amica, see what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnboHTfYsfk&t=31s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGWVKkYEHBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUjMzVGXpE&t=501s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWACmFLvpHE

 

[The Great Zaganza]

not worried at all about the A.I., just the way humans are going to use it to scam other humans or commit other crimes.

A.I. will not control us at all unless we let them because it's convenient and useful - and we can always pull the plug, just like with any advanced technology.

 

[Hercules56]

not worried at all about the A.I., just the way humans are going to use it to scam other humans or commit other crimes.

A.I. will not control us at all unless we let them because it's convenient and useful - and we can always pull the plug, just like with any advanced technology.

Congress should pass a law that all AI robots be connected to a national data center so govt can pull the plug in an emergency.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Congress should pass a law that all AI robots be connected to a national data center so govt can pull the plug in an emergency.

that's not how you pull the plug.

this is:

https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/red-box-with-axe-in-case-of-emergency-vector-id500019166

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm worried about it in the "Algorithmically generated false information is gonna make Grandpa vote for the downfall of the country again" sense not the Terminator/Skynet "I'm gonna wake up one morning to find out that in the night my Roomba learned how to use a switchblade" sense.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm worried about it in the "Algorithmically generated false information is gonna make Grandpa vote for the downfall of the country" sense not the Terminator/Skynet "I'm gonna wake up one morning to find out that in the night my Roomba learned how to use a switchblade" sense.

no need for A.I. for that.

 

[theprestige]

I'm worried about it in the "Algorithmically generated false information is gonna make Grandpa vote for the downfall of the country" sense not the Terminator/Skynet "I'm gonna wake up one morning to find out that in the night my Roomba learned how to use a switchblade" sense.

I'm worried about it in the "algorithmically generated pattern recognition will ensure that Grandpa gets exactly the false information most likely to ensare and mislead him, automatically, at scale".

It's the "at scale" part that worries me the most. Finding one Grandpa, or ten, or a hundred, that are vulnerable to a particular line of nonsense is one thing, and bad enough. A robot that can automatically match up millions of Grandpas with tailored lines of nonsense, all in one week, is terrifying. At that point, we're *all* going to be "Grandpas". We're *all* going to be in some Pattern-Recognizer's bucket for one line of nonsense or another. And we're all going to be increasingly ill-equipped to identify the nonsense when we see it.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

One reason I still stick around this forum is that it's one of the few online places where I can be pretty certain everyone I'm talking to is a real human being, and that most of us are developing ideas based on something more than just regurgitating stealth lines of nonsense. It's why I'm so vehement about not introducting chatbots into conversations between humans.