(November 4, 2016 at 1:09 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: That's the thing, the assumptions he outlines are indeed very sound.

No, really, they are not.

Must. Destroy. Something. Beautiful.

@ Ham
Well, idk about that, like I said, not a fan - that vid is probably the first time I've seen his stuff, or at least I don't remember him from anything else.  I've heard that he ruffled some religious feathers, some regressive left feathers, and free will compatibilist feathers. Mostly from posts on these boards, lol.

@ Mathilda

Help me out, which of his assumptions are we discussing, and why aren't they sound? You're the expert here, I'd love to hear and understand your take. It's just that hearing you repeat that so ambiguously is uninformative, you know? Are we discussing that video, specifically, or are you referring to other things I haven't heard?

It probably didn't help that I drank coffee 12 hours ago. This is even worse than when I drank an espresso and went paragliding the first time after my incident 800 feet up in bad air.

Intelligence is about information processing and technology is advancing... weren't those his assumptions?

So, I'm taking the time here, to source his assumptions, to see if we're all talking about the same thing. Starts at about 4:20 ish.

1.  Intelligence is a matter of information processing in physical systems.
2.  We will continue to improve our intelligent machines.
3.  We are not near the summit of possible intelligence.

These?

(November 4, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @ Ham
I've heard that he ruffled some religious feathers, some regressive left feathers, and free will compatibilist feathers.  Mostly from posts on these boards, lol.

All three of those being good things

I'm very very liberal... but the regressive left are the sorts of liberals who when someone draws a cartoon and gets killed for it by Islamists.... they blame Western Society for not being tolerant enough...

Yeah, that's not a good kind of liberal

Quote:@ Mathilda

Help me out, which of his assumptions are we discussing, and why aren't they sound?

My thoughts exactly.

(November 4, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, I'm taking the time here, to source his assumptions, to see if we're all talking about the same thing. Starts at about 4:20 ish.

1.  Intelligence is a matter of information processing in physical systems.
2.  We will continue to improve our intelligent machines.
3.  We are not near the summit of possible intelligence.

These?

Yeah.

"2" and "3" are obviously sound and "1" Mathilda already agreed with when I said it on another thread lol.

Hell, my fucking stove has a software glitch that makes the "4" button inoperative to enter a temperature setting unless the stove is already heating and at a temperature over 100 degrees F. And it's just a fucking stove!!!

Who thinks the software for any AI project in the next 100 years would be implemented 'perfectly' ?



Any AI device attempting to enslave us will nevertheless be dependent on humans to reboot it when it locks up.

It's not as though it would take more than a few seconds for ai to legitimately fuck us up.......hoping that a glitch or a reboot will save us is hoping that it doesn't entirely finish us off before it crashes, if it crashes...and ofc, seeing as how he's discussing ai that's smarter than ourselves...it's likely to be just as capable -at least- as ourselves in overcoming that particular problem.  

What Harris is discussing isn't a fear of robot overlords coming to steal our women anyway, and he actually takes the time to specifically address that.  Enslavement, malice, intentional harm...these things are irrelevant to his concerns.  He, also, specificaly mentions the notion that the first AI -wouldn't- be perfectly implemented, that's exactly what he takes to be worrying about it....even though he concedes that he can't muster up what he considers to be an appropriate response to that risk - it's just too damn cool to properly worry about, lol.