Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ChristianKl comments on Existential risk from AI without an intelligence explosion - Less Wrong

12 Post author: AlexMennen 25 May 2017 04:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (23)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 June 2017 02:50:11PM 0 points [-]

There was some speculation about it: https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine

When I read "Cambridge Analytica isn’t the only company that could pull this off -- but it is the most powerful right now." I immediately think "citation needed".

Eric Schmidt funded multiple companies to provide technology to get Hillary elected.

Comment author: turchin 22 June 2017 02:52:31PM 0 points [-]

There are many programs which play Go, but only one currently with superhuman performance.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 June 2017 02:59:03PM 0 points [-]

On the Go side, the program with the superhuman performance is run by Eric Schmidt's company.

What makes you think that Eric Schmidt's people aren't the best in the other domain as well?

Comment author: turchin 22 June 2017 03:06:03PM 0 points [-]

The fact that H lost?

But in fact, I don't want to derail the discussion about AI's possible decisive advantage in the future in the conspiracy looking discussion about past elections, which I mentioned as a possible example of strategic games, but not as the fact proving that such AI actually exists.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 June 2017 04:01:54PM *  0 points [-]

The fact that H lost?

That argument feels circular in nature. You believe that Trump won because of a powerful computer model, simply because Trump won and he was supported by a computer model.

One the other hand, you have a tech billionaire who's gathering top programmers to fight. On the other hand, you have a company that has to be told by the daughter of that tech-billionaire what software they should use.

Who's press person said they worked for the leave-campaign and who's CEO is currently on the record for never having worked for the leave-campaign, neither paid nor unpaid.

From a NYTimes article:

But Cambridge’s psychographic models proved unreliable in the Cruz presidential campaign, according to Rick Tyler, a former Cruz aide, and another consultant involved in the campaign. In one early test, more than half the Oklahoma voters whom Cambridge had identified as Cruz supporters actually favored other candidates. The campaign stopped using Cambridge’s data entirely after the South Carolina primary.

There's a lot of irony in the fact that Cambridge Analytica seems to be better at telling spin about its amazing abilities of political manipulation in an untargeted way, than they are actually at helping political campaign.

I just saw on scout.ai's about page that they see themselves as being in the science fiction business. Maybe I should be less hard on them.

Comment author: turchin 22 June 2017 04:18:01PM 0 points [-]

I want to underline again that the fact that I discuss a possibility doesn't mean that I believe in it. The winning is evidence of intelligent power but given prior about its previous failures, it may be not strong evidence.