(November 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 4, 2016 at 5:15 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: That's because we outsmart them. 

As for how, it's simple. Faulty programming.

K
So the smart toaster becomes faulty and stops working? The self driving car needs to be rebooted? Yeah. Definite apocalypse there.

No, the A. G. I. begins improving itself at a rate much faster than a human and we get an extremely smart mind in a box. If you think its lack of limbs is going to be a problem. . .  I have no idea why you would think that. If I were 10.000 times smarter than you, you wouldn't fear me because of my body.

(November 4, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: We're talking about a distant future where AI is far more smart than us, has a mind of its own and has its own interests.

So let's break this down, shall we?

First, we don't know what such a hypothetical AI looks like, but it's fair to assume it ill need some kind of casing. Computer, machine, organism even - we're talking about the future after all.

For it to function, it will take processing power, lots of it. And processing power means nothing if there isn't energy. Energy has to come from somewhere and isn't available everywhere. Not even solar power.

Since we have that established, we can move on to the hypothetical AIs mental capacities. How can a thing, designed by human intellect, assembled by human ingenuity, possibly surpass human intellect and ingenuity? It could process faster, given the right amount of energy and processing power. Computers do that for us already, but it can't actually surpass the intellect available when it's assembled.

But let's give you the Albert Einstein of AIs. It goes rogue, so what does it do when we simply cut the grid? How does it maintain itself to pose a threat. It would need access to components, energy and the ability to manually work on itself while still functioning at full power while damaged.

How likely is all of this coming together anytime?

(November 4, 2016 at 5:31 pm)abaris Wrote: How can a thing, designed by human intellect, assembled by human ingenuity, possibly surpass human intellect and ingenuity?

How couldn't it?

Isn't that rather like asking "how could intelligent humans evolve from singe selled organisms?"

Seems like the genetic fallacy from me. Why would intelligent AI in the future be limited by the intelligence of those who created?

Quote: It could process faster, given the right amount of energy and processing power. Computers do that for us already, but it can't actually surpass the intellect available when it's assembled.

Why not?

We're talking about future intelligences where the AIs can think for themselves like humans... only much more intelligent.

Quote:How likely is all of this coming together anytime?

Like anytime soon? Like he said.... all it takes is us to keep going, it doesn't have to be anytime soon.

(November 4, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Like anytime soon? Like he said.... all it takes is us to keep going, it doesn't have to be anytime soon.

You didn't adress the most important parts of my post. Why's that?

To repeat in a simple chain of words: Casing, processing power, energy, the ability to maintain itself, access to the necessary components, functioning at full capacity while damaged.

(November 4, 2016 at 5:16 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 4, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Yeah but how will AI be a threat?

Bears don't just see us as ants, they see us as food. I don't see much of a bear apocalypse going on right now.

I'm quoting the quote to add another question. How likely is it in this fictional scenario that an AI, created by humans, surpasses human intellect? How should that work, apart from processing power, energy and self repair routines needed, since the AI is a threat in this scenario. So it can't expect to be serviced by humans.

Ah good. A proper question. Thank you.

What is intellect? Googling I get "the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters."

We can already do this now with Mathematics. Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check but this is for a specific purpose. It's not generalisable. It's a mere computational search. There's no adaptability, no learning, no memory or any myriad of other functions that the brain performs. And now Mathematicians are asking whether it's actually a useful tool because we, humans, cannot understand it. Our brains are the limiting factor. Tools need to be useful. If they aren't, then they won't be used.

Intellect is a very small aspect of intelligence. Intelligence also includes the ability to control your body, to interpret sensory data, store and save memory, generalise over learned experiences. But for this you need to be embodied some how. That can be in an virtual environment like a computer game for example, but as with GIGO (Garbage in Garbage Out) you can only process what you have been given.

So let's take the idea of letting an AI loose into the wilds of the internet. All that data to play with. How does it reason about all of that if it doesn't lead a human life? More importantly, why would it? What drives it? Well perhaps a goal we have given it, in which case it's a tool that's either useful or it isn't. Maybe we want to give it the ability to control some resource like buy and sell shares, we do that now and yes there are concerns if everyone does it, but again, it's a tool, it has to be useful. And ultimately like with every human, even a tool is accountable to someone else.

Let's take Data from Star Trek. An embodied artificial intelligence with super human intelligence. Why should we expect an AI to be any different to any other animal or human? It has the same problems that we all do. It has a limited body with competing needs, it's probably going to deal with them in a similar way, with emotions, drives, instincts etc. Some humans are more intelligent than others but we're still accountable, we still have to obey laws.

If people think we should be afraid of large, super intelligent organisms with the capacity change the world, then why not be afraid of corporations? They can be made up of hundreds of thousands of brains all specialising in particular areas. They are a far more immediate threat than AI yet we can still control them. They are still accountable.

Intellect, no matter how advanced is limited by its environment.

(November 4, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: No not faulty. Like why do people kill ants? Because most people have more important things on their minds and don't give a shit. They're pests.

We're talking about a distant future where AI is far more smart than us, has a mind of its own and has its own interests.

No one worried about Einstein going on a killing spree and he had a working body. Certainly no one contemplates the possibility of Stephen Hawking doing it. He's a brain in a wheel chair. Or to use Sam Harris's example, John von Neumann. We each have our own interests, our own mind and some of us are smarter than others. So? What's going to happen?

Quote:If people think we should be afraid of large, super intelligent organisms with the capacity change the world, then why not be afraid of corporations? They can be made up of hundreds of thousands of brains all specialising in particular areas. They are a far more immediate threat than AI yet we can still control them. They are still accountable.

Can we...are they...it's starting to look like that may not be true...and we clearly -do- have reason to fear them.......some of their achievements read like a demons resume. If this is the sneak peak of what a greater intelligence than our own can bring...how could you possibly be disagreeing with Harris...?

I see you've decided to go the batshit christer route of deciding which questions are proper. Good for you, lol.

(November 4, 2016 at 5:30 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(November 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Mathilda Wrote: K
So the smart toaster becomes faulty and stops working? The self driving car needs to be rebooted? Yeah. Definite apocalypse there.

No, the A. G. I. begins improving itself at a rate much faster than a human and we get an extremely smart mind in a box. If you think its lack of limbs is going to be a problem. . .  I have no idea why you would think that. If I were 10.000 times smarter than you, you wouldn't fear me because of my body.

And how would AGI improve itself exponentially faster than a human?

If you were 10,000 times smarter than me, why would I have to fear you?

(November 4, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Ah good. A proper question. Thank you.

Here's another one. Every AI will only be a product of the technology available at the time of it's creation. It will never be a species being subject to evolution, since the technology will consist of hardware and software of the time of creation. It's impossible to evolve beyond the technological limits.

(November 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 4, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Like anytime soon? Like he said.... all it takes is us to keep going, it doesn't have to be anytime soon.

You didn't adress the most important parts of my post. Why's that?

To repeat in a simple chain of words: Casing, processing power, energy, the ability to maintain itself, access to the necessary components, functioning at full capacity while damaged.

How is this the most important part?

The premise is already that AI is getting better and better... I don't see how it's going to happen is relevant. There are numerous ways and numerous resources.

The sun doesn't have unlimited energy but it's not exactly going to run out.