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

[Tiberius]

On a more light-hearted note, this whole thread reminded me of an awesome SCP entry I read: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-079

SCP for those who are unaware is a crowd-sourced fictional database about a secretive organization that collects and protects a load of strange / supernatural "phenomenon".

[Excited Penguin]

You think that's what intelligence is?

Sounds to me like you're talking about skill in general.

Intelligence is about speed and depth of comprehension (or in A.I. an artificial simulation of it).

That's a lay person's understanding of intelligence and is a very small proportion of what the brain does.

What Ham proposed is all we need it to do anyway. We can do away with the other useless stuff . We don't want it to sniff drugs or run a marathon but be better than us and eventually than itself at a prior moment at solving problems.

[Gemini]

...

It's much like a compatabilist who claims they have a more complex understanding of free will when all they've done is redefined it.

...

(j/k)

As far as friendly AI and the singularity goes, I'd need a bunch of experts on AI to say it was worth worrying about before I started worrying about it. As in, something comparable to the consensus among climatologists in support of global warming. I don't think laypeople are capable of evaluating something like this.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I'm going to leave this thread now. It's late, I'm tired and I've said my piece.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dunning Kruger? Don't know what I am talking about? I have a doctorate in this area and post doctoral experience. I am an active peer reviewed published researcher. I've been doing this kind of work since 1996.

-and none of that, absolutely none of it, makes you good at reason.  Now you're just strawmanning -me- after spending 15 pages strawmanning someone else.  I was willing to grant that you were good at ai, but that this thread demonstrates that you have a poor grasp of logical discourse.   Do you understand the difference?  

I was told during my PhD that it was very ambitious. I pulled it off. Apparently my boss sang my praises to everyone before I started my research fellowship. I've strived to tackle the hardest problems rather than to concentrate on publishing as many papers as possible. I've tried to break new ground. I've succeeded. This is why I only work with self organising systems. This is why I have a good understanding of just how difficult it is. I've worked in most areas of AI and R&D in industry as well as academia.

-awesome....and clearly you picked the right field because, if your that successful as a researcher, it would be a shame to see you wast that talent by attempting rational debate.  

And this is far more experience, qualifications and knowledge than either you or Sam Harris has. And I am the one with Dunning Kruger?

Yes, and -that very sentence- is a bare exposition -of- dunning kruger. Your own appraisal of your competency, in this case about something entirely unrelated, leads you to conclude that you know your shit about that unrelated thing. You don;t..or you wouldn't have foisted the torrent of fallacies you graced us with tonight. You have just expressed the opinion that a fallacious appeal to authority clears you of the effect....just how do you expect me to respond to that?

I didn't intend to hurt your pride regarding your involvement in AI, I honestly didn't....and nothing I've said -should- do that. Keep on keepin on being an ai badass....but allow for the possibility that your rational inference and debate method needs work?

[Edwardo Piet]

...

It's much like a compatabilist who claims they have a more complex understanding of free will when all they've done is redefined it.

...

(j/k)

As far as friendly AI and the singularity goes, I'd need a bunch of experts on AI to say it was worth worrying about before I started worrying about it. As in, something comparable to the consensus among climatologists in support of global warming. I don't think laypeople are capable of evaluating something like this.

Yes I agree. I can't fault Harris' conclusions following from his premises but maybe his premises are mistaken if the majority of AI researches do indeed think so.

Lol compatabilism isn't so bad

Dan Dennett is right about one thing: Compatabilists and incompatabilists disagree on tactics is all, really. Like Sam Harris is indeed a compatabilist by everything but name. And so am I.

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as friendly AI and the singularity goes, I'd need a bunch of experts on AI to say it was worth worrying about before I started worrying about it. As in, something comparable to the consensus among climatologists in support of global warming. I don't think laypeople are capable of evaluating something like this.

Either you feel competent at evaluating an argument on the merits of argument, or you don't.  You don't have to be an expert in the subject -of- the argument to be competent with regards -to- argumentation.  That's the beautiful, universal and approachable nature of reason.  Knowing -nothing- of a subject, you can still spot a poor argument -regarding- a subject...or, for that matter a strong one.

Harris' -argument- was strong.  The conclusion follows from the premises listed.  That's independent of anything ai related.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. What Gemini said still stands though.

Like... yeah I agree I think Harris' conclusion follows from his premises. I'm just not so sure about how sound his premises are anymore... if most experts think they're not.

[Edwardo Piet]

Harris' -argument- was strong.  The conclusion follows from the premises listed.  That's independent of anything ai related.

QFT.

That's what I've been trying to say this entire thread. I wish I was as concise as you lol.

[Excited Penguin]

(j/k)

As far as friendly AI and the singularity goes, I'd need a bunch of experts on AI to say it was worth worrying about before I started worrying about it. As in, something comparable to the consensus among climatologists in support of global warming. I don't think laypeople are capable of evaluating something like this.

Yes I agree. I can't fault Harris' conclusions following from his premises but maybe his premises are mistaken if the majority of AI researches do indeed think so.

Lol compatabilism isn't so bad

Dan Dennett is right about one thing: Compatabilists and incompatabilists disagree on tactics is all, really. Like Sam Harris is indeed a compatabilist by everything but name. And so am I.

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