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

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

You;d be a fool not to be afraid of an above average human being who found you to be in conflict with one of it's goals....the earth is littered with the bones of people who didn;t properly identify risk, let alone a superintelligent machine....and the means by which ai would improve itself faster than humans has been discussed not only in the video but many times in the thread - on the basis of speed alone.  It could do intellectual work many, many times faster than even a commensurately intelligent human being is -capable- of doing.  This intellectual work might just be ai research...how could that have escaped you as an ai researcher...don;t you already use machine intelligence for precisely this purpose?  I can't imagine that you're sitting there with paper and pencil running simulations by hand.  

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.

We didn't -evolve- beyond our own limits, we innovated beyond them - so it's clearly not impossible.  The same is being proposed for superintelligent ai, cheifly since it's being designed for precisely the attribute that allowed us to do the very same thing..except that it's already got an innate advantage on us, being so much faster at it than we are, already...and so technically does not have to be smarter than us to be more intellectually productive than than us.  As a point of fact, it could be a million times "less smart", however we'd figure that one out...and it would be commensurate in productivity to a human being.

The machine that designs machines. Now, a to the post above.. we don't have to assume that, he lays out his argument plainly and clearly, brings up objections himself, and invites a person to do the same. Energy is bordering on a complete dodge. Lack of energy hasn't stopped us yet, nor has it stopped our own intelligence machines, our brains. Dealing with surplus energy in the form of heat is a more technical and practical concern. We've got the juice, and could get a hell of alot more of it..if that was the problem. Particularly if we were plugging in a machine that could do 20k years of human intellect level research in a week.......not even based on it being super smart, just super fast - like our machines already are. Harris describes this as the "winner take all" scenario that ai would effect upon us. To be second is to be obsolete. To be first is to win the world.