Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris

[Excited Penguin]

Who have you that ridiculous idea. In fact most experts think it's coming. The problem is they're not apprehensive enough and a little too enthusiastic about it sometimes.

Really? And how do you know this? Have you spoken to them? What exactly is coming?  Most experts in AI are like all other scientists and only ever claim what they know.


There are a lot of so called experts out there who aren't actually experts in the field of Artificial Intelligence though, like Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkings, Elon Musk who go out their way to talk about Artificial Intelligence but who don't know anything about it.

It is true that there are a few people who are professionals in the field of Artificial Intelligence like Kevin Warwick etc. But they're generally recognised for what they are. Media scientists.u

I'm talking about A. I. Researchers. I'm talking about polls. Go educate yourself. Start with the book I told you to read , if nothing else. Your anecdotal experience means nothing here.

[Excited Penguin]

Which guy?

Looks to me like you're right about Mathilda being in the minority when it comes to the experts... according to RationalWiki:


Source:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Existential_risk

My emphasis.

Saying that we can theoretically reproduce it given enough computing power is that very different from saying that we will eventually reproduce it .

And there's equivocation here about reproduce. Does it mean here to simulate it or create it?

You can't create human consciousness in something that is not human because then it would not be human consciousness.

If that's what Rationalwiki is saying then it is wrong and I don't think many people working in the field of artificial consciousness would disagree with me on that.

I believe that we can give AI consciousness for example. I think we should and I believe that it's not a hard problem. It won't ever be human consciousness though. I believe that given enough processing power we can simulate or approximate human consciousness, but that isn't actually human consciousness.

So you believe we can give it consciousness and that doesn't scare you. . . 

Yes, you are off your rockers and all this is is an overreaction to what you must be perceiving as an attack to how you make your living. 

You can't find work as an a. I.  Researcher. Seriously . You must be a really bad one given how much funding there's going into it right now. 


No one cares that you're researching or trying to make it. All anyone cares is about the safety problem. Something you're comfortable not only dismissing for no reason at all but are actually vehemently fighting against. Why do you even care. Like what? ?

[Excited Penguin]

No ham. It's the other way around. Mathilda, here, is in the minority among her own ilk AFAIK.

And you've spoken and worked with them have you?

I have consulted polls. I don't need to work with them to know what they think on the matter.

[Excited Penguin]

And only a very small portion of what the brain does is actually relevant to intelligence.

Depending on how you define intelligence.

But that doesn't help if you are trying to create artificial intelligence. This is why classical AI failed after trying to get some success after 40 years. This is why the fields of new AI / non-symbolic AI  and artificial Life came about.

Intelligence isn't just about reasoning about abstract things. It includes sensory processing, linguistics, motor co-ordination. This all requires learning and adaptation to an environment. Why wouldn't you call that intelligence?

Because it's fucking irrelevant to what we want to reproduce in a machine.

[Excited Penguin]

Because that's totally unimportant when he talks about things like that. We should embrace every word coming from his mouth and kiss the ground he walks on without reflecting on the actual possibility of his scenario to happen.

Exactly. He really is like a substitute charismatic religious leader for atheists. He proclaims judgement about things on which he has no expertise, experience or knowledge and his adherents follow him blindly without question.

A fundamental part of being trained up as a scientist is to only make speculations that can be backed up by hard evidence. It's always sad to see an ex scientist drop all this as they fall in love with people hanging on their every word about all kinds of things that they know nothing about.

He's not an ex scientist, he's still a scientist. Go read his books before you criticize him like that . You're embarrassing yourself.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Pathetic responses EP not even worth countering. Looks like any reasoned debate has left this thread long ago. If you get called out on your unstated assumptions then start insulting the person doing it.

I knew it was a mistake coming back to this thread but I genuinely love talking about AI and the understanding that it gives us. Looks like a disaster porn thread isn't the right place for that.

[Excited Penguin]

Holy....

[Tiberius]

Rational Wiki used as a source? End the thread here. You might as well use Conservapedia. The page even has a warning about itself: "This page contains rather too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved."

The statement Alasdair quoted is one of those unsourced statements.

[Edwardo Piet]

Saying that we can theoretically reproduce it given enough computing power is that very different from saying that we will eventually reproduce it .

No RationalWiki said that most experts in the field think that long-term it's an existential risk and that the minority who don't admit their reasons for thinking otherwise may not be valid

And there's equivocation here about reproduce. Does it mean here to simulate it or create it?

You can't create human consciousness in something that is not human because then it would not be human consciousness.

That doesn't matter. There's nothing special about human consciousness. It doesn't have to be actual human consciousness. If it's as intelligent or more intelligent than human consciousness whether it's actual biological human consciousness is obviously irrelevant to the point. It's like when pro-lifers are interested in whether a fetus is 'actually human'. It's completely irrelevant.

If that's what Rationalwiki is saying then it is wrong and I don't think many people working in the field of artificial consciousness would disagree with me on that.

I believe that we can give AI consciousness for example. I think we should and I believe that it's not a hard problem. It won't ever be human consciousness though. I believe that given enough processing power we can simulate or approximate human consciousness, but that isn't actually human consciousness.

It doesn't matter. There's nothing special about human consciousness.

[Edwardo Piet]

Rational Wiki used as a source? End the thread here. You might as well use Conservapedia. The page even has a warning about itself: "This page contains rather too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved."

The statement Alasdair quoted is one of those unsourced statements.

Oh I didn't know that. I thought it was more reliable than Wikipedia.

Lol I'm guessing you're not serious about ending the thread though.

Does the thread have to be locked because I used a source less reliable than I thought it was?