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

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

And is a wholly unfounded assumption.

We have no reason to believe that an AI would improve itself faster than humans. How could it? No one has explained this yet or given any reason to assume that it would. Why would an AI be able to do this and not a natural agent?

People see computers are fast at certain tasks and assume that they are always faster than brains. This is totally wrong. Brains are actually faster than computers at a lot of things. For example, if I throw an apple at you, or it's partially hidden, or it's lifted up, sideways, rotated, coloured differently, you still instantly recognise it as an apple. You also have certain connotations and memories of apples that come immediately to mind. The processing power for this is absolutely immense but we don't even think about it. It just happens.

Again you ask the very same question as though it hadn't already been answered, in the video, even in the post -you quoted- in response to.  No one is assuming that computers are faster at crunching numbers or more reliable at making logical inference.  They objectively and demonstrable are.  No ones assuming it's better at everything, some of us are expressing the fact that it -is- better at -this- thing.  Again, no one even requires that it be better......it can be equivalent and it's still -faster-.  No one says it isn't immense, and obviusly we'd have to think about it to effect it, to make that sort of improvement...but if 1) is true, that intelligence is a matter of information processing in physical systems....and pointing to our very own brains as an example...it's obviously not -impossible- to achieve regardless of how difficult it it. 

Dunning kruger is moving at full warp, at this point.......

It's precisely because I use machine intelligence for my tools that I know how slow it is. I can spend weeks or months evolving a simple agent controller that will do something very simple but intelligent. I won't know how it works unless I spend weeks or months of my life analysing it.

You obviously have shitty machines, or you actually -don't- know what you're talking about after all.  You let a computer spend many more of those months doing that analysis, please, for the love of christ, please don't pretend that you're this obtuse..or that you're doing the brunt of that work. You aren't, you should know you aren't, and that your very research wouldn't be feasible without that assistance...and we're talking about a -much- more powerful system if we're talking hypothetical ai, 50 years, 500 years, or 5000 years from now...unless, for no stated reason..we make absolutely no progess in all that time. 

Which again makes assumptions. How does a machine do this? It can't know in advance what will and will not work. Each solution has to be evaluated. This takes an extremely long time. You are essentially assuming that the whole course of evolution will happen in an instant.

The same way we do it.  It makes precisely -3- assumptions, all of which have been listed.  How do we evaluate those solutions.....today, with the help of computers, huh?  Dumb ones, relative doorknobs to general ai.  

No. Energy requirements are critical. The lower the energy consumption, the more processing you can do. You can't have an android or drone walking or flying around that requires several megawatts to run. Nor can you offload the processing to a remote server either because it has to react in real time.

The less energy that is required, the more sustainable it is.

Oh ffs sake, you're just shifting shit around and pretending to respond to my comments.  OFC energy requirements ar critical, no juice no play....but we have juice, and can get more juice...we have every reason -to- get more juice and to duimp it into a machine wih the capabilities that has so much as a "human level" intelligence, or even far less, no matter what the cost - and we already do.  20k years in a week.  Do a cost benefit analysis on that and tell me you don't think it's worth it.  That's the majority of human technological achievement in the same amount of time it takes me to plant 5 acres of fucking beans by hand.  Yes please. Similarly, unless being a drone that walks around and flies is somehow necessary, it;s pointless to reference as though it were informative in context...which it isn't.

How would the AI understand the implications of what it is researching if it is not embodied in the real world? How would an energy inefficient AI make use of that information if all it is is a computer with no actuators?

Again, and for the final time, is there some reason that it -couldn't- be embodied in the real world...because unless there is, this is a meaningless and illogical objection. Meanwhile apparently "disembodied" current computers already have vast utility that far exceeds human ability....so wtf are you even going on about? Our own "embodied" intelligence relies on simulation...that we have bodies is, to us, no different than simply believing that we do or having them simulated. Our entire idea -of- a body is a simulation even if we -also- have them. You tell me what the important component is, in that?

Lets cut through all this shit right now, because I don;t have endless patience. You didn;t watch that video, you don;t intend to address Harris arguments, and aren't actually aware of their contents, are you? Further, you have no intention of doing anything other than positing and endless litany of bad logic hefted up, cheifly, by the notion that you're an expert and that somehow makes you good at reasoning -about- your area of expertise. Which is, itself, unfortunately, bad reasoning. Ypou don;t know how long it will take for us to achieve ai, you don't know what it would take to recreate a human level intelligence, or fabricate a superintelligent ai...you don't have a crystal ball and you're incapable of forming a rational explanation for your beliefs about all the things previously mentioned. You have frustration, you have a neverending stream of irrelevant "it's super duper difficult"s...yeah, well, no shit, and?