Originally Posted by Ele
As we can see from the NTM, AI possesses the ability to complete "tasks beyond those it has been trained to do." It's self-programmable, so it's able to do things that we haven't told it to do. A constraining source code, like Musk said, is like summoning a demon. Because AI can do things that we don't intend, we have to be damn sure that our pentagram is airtight. He pumped $10m into researching Friendly AI because he's aware of the very real possibility that shit can go south.
It is not doing things beyond what the source code tells it to, the AI is programmed to be able to reprogram itself, with the purpose of being better at its original purpose. It is not entirely self programmed as it only adds code, it doesn't create its entire code from scratch.
What things can the AI do that is not intended? If its updating class is coded properly, its updates will be purely beneficial for the task it was designed to do, other aspects would not be affected.
Originally Posted by Redundant
For instance I encourage ImmortalPig to back up his claim that AI can easily be controlled. The opposition provided a source by Stephen Hawking who believes that AI has the potential to be very dangerous. I doubt that your simple analysis of the issue is correct when someone like Hawking believes otherwise.
Once you back it up perhaps a healthy discussion can flourish and we can all learn something.
Just making statements will not work in a thread like this.
I have to back up the claim that an AI on a completely isolated system is not a threat whilst Hawking can make whatever farfetched doomsday claim that he wants? May I remind you that Hawking is a physicist, not a computer scientist, let alone an AI expert.
Don't make this another "hurr durr anything is possible" discussion mate...
EDIT: Actually maybe we should start enforcing the rule that you need to at least know about the topic at hand to be allowed to post...
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Feb 11, 2015 at 08:18 PM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The danger of self-programming strong AI is overhyped. The solutions exist already and are used for sensitive equipment - air gap it and control access. It doesn't matter if you let your self-programming strong AI run for a billion generations if all it can access is what you need it to access. There we go, now "our biggest existential threat" has been conquered.
That said, the threat of AI going rogue is also overhyped. For example in the case of Google's neural network AI, even if it became a strong AI, it cannot achieve infinite intelligence because it is bounded by the neurons, hardware, and it probably isn't allowed access to run rampant on the system anyway.
The only situation where there's a real threat of an AI running rogue is when it's given access to the internet, it's own host machine, allowed privilege to modify it's own source, and allowed to function without any monitoring.
NTM is only interesting because of the hybrid approach. Honestly it has been done before and again, kind of overhyped. The point of an NN is for the whole thing to be memory and processing with similar architecture (as in a brain), so separating memory to conventional storage is somewhat of a hack.
There are other projects to simulate the human brain. Here is a link to IBM's Watson Microchip based on the human brain. Its main similarity to a human brain comes from its lack of accuracy caused by electrons jumping between the "neurones" due to the microchips unbelievable size. The main aim of the project was to keep the computer tiny and the aforementioned inaccuracy phenomenon, while in some ways being a great limitation, proves that the more like a brain a circuit is the more it starts to pick up certain characteristics. Progress is slowed by the lack of small enough synapse like components which are able to rewire themselves (again based on the synapses of the human brain). If you are interested in finding out more please tell me and I will root out the original article I read which covers the development in greater detail.
I think the IBM microchip would be safer than the NTM for most probably obviously apparent reasons.
-----
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I have to back up the claim that an AI on a completely isolated system is not a threat whilst Hawking can make whatever farfetched doomsday claim that he wants? May I remind you that Hawking is a physicist, not a computer scientist, let alone an AI expert.
You have a point, when I heard about Steven Hawking's warning I was especially sceptical. His concern started when the new voice program started autocorrecting words he did not want to use giving him an idea that it was disobeying or even controlling him. Although the origin is not sufficient to undermine the argument, I still feel like we shouldn't just trust Steven Hawking on matters beyond his expertise.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Actually maybe we should start enforcing the rule that you need to at least know about the topic at hand to be allowed to post...
I feel like the thread starter helps ensure this by providing at least the minimum amount of knowledge required to participate in this thread. Therefore the rule you claim we are not properly moderating does not particularly need to be moderated. Your rhetoric is wasted on me, sorry.
I hate to drift off topic, but if we are thinking about the most likely way for humanity to stupidly wipe itself out then we certainly don't need AI to do it. I feel like humanity nuking itself to oblivion is more likely than someone building a super-advanced machine which will decide to do it for us.
Last edited by Zelda; Feb 11, 2015 at 08:55 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I have to back up the claim that an AI on a completely isolated system is not a threat whilst Hawking can make whatever farfetched doomsday claim that he wants?
I doubt you are an expert either so yes you do. You can ask your opposition for sources as well if you like. I was going to once they post opposing ideas. You would also require arguments and sources why all AI in the future would definitely be on isolated systems exclusively.
I am not an expert, or even close to having any knowledge about computer science. I have no idea if your statement is true or not. That is why I need a source to verify it.
Based on what I know I could make speculations about an AI being used to infiltrate certain systems where it would gain control over systems that are not isolated. Since we are talking about potential future scenarios those things have to be considered as well. You are making the speculation that all AI will be exclusively used on completely isolated systems, please elaborate why that is a sound prediction.
Since you are saying that it would solve the problem of an AI being dangerous you are admitting that AIs on not isolated systems are dangerous, I assume. Do you not think that only using them on isolated systems only is a poor precaution? Technologies are not exactly known to be in control of one reasonable instance only.
As I said, this is an incredibly complex field of science already and if you are making predictions about the future it becomes vastly more complex.
I did not pick on you because I dislike you but because you made an extraordinary claim. It is an interesting topic so don't ruin it by being personal. It's annoying and fruitless.
If you don't want to speculate, as your post indicates, you should stay away from these topics. This topic is per definition about speculations. I don't want it to become a “hurr durr anything is possible“ thread either, however. That is why I asked for sources for all claims.
Last edited by Redundant; Feb 11, 2015 at 10:50 PM.
I'll say I actually agree with ImmortalPig on this one. Given the proper precautions, an isolated AI won't ever surpass it's hardware limitations. It won't suddenly start growing an ethernet cable and reach for the nearest modem inch-by-inch. It also won't start 3D printing an army of terminators or whatever without being hooked to a 3D printer (and the internet to get a general idea of what it's supposed to print to start murdering people).
Just keep these entities off the Internet and all is fine.
To be honest, if you write an AI to open a door it won't start making it's own objectives afterwards. Asking questions is a human trait, no other animal does that, so it'd be pretty hard to achieve that in a machine.
I'll write up a more detailed post on this topic when I find the time to do so.
Just keep these entities off the Internet and all is fine.
To be honest, if you write an AI to open a door it won't start making it's own objectives afterwards. Asking questions is a human trait, no other animal does that, so it'd be pretty hard to achieve that in a machine.
I'll write up a more detailed post on this topic when I find the time to do so.
Last edited by ynvaser; Feb 11, 2015 at 11:27 PM.
