= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Probably, this link: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/obama-envisions-ai-new-apollo-program/
She could read "The Basic AI Drives" to him at night.
In hope that he will stop creating AI? But in 6 years it will be Microsoft.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
Is there a good rebuttal to why we don't donate 100% of our income to charity? I mean, as an explanation tribality / near - far are ok, but is there a good justification post-hoc?
Some possible argument against charities. Personally I think that it is normal to donate around 1 per cent of income in form of charity support.
- Some can't survive on less or have other obligations that looks like charity (child support)
- We would have less initiative to earn more
- It would hurt our economy, as it is consumer driven. We must buy Iphones
- I do many useful things which intended on helping other people, but I need pleasures to recreate my commitments, so I spend money on myself.
- I pay taxes and it is like charity.
- I know better how to spent money on my needs.
- Human psychology is about summing different values in one brain, so I could spent only part of my energy on charity.
- If I buy goods, my money goes to working people, so it is like charity for them. If I stop buying goods, they will be jobless and will need charity money for survive. So the more I give for charity, the more people need it.
- If you overdonate, you could flip-flop and start to hate the thing. Especially if you find that your money was not spent effectively.
- Donating 100 per cent will make you look crazy in views of some, and their will to donate diminish.
- If you spent more on yourself, you could ask higher salary and as result earn more and donate more. Only a homeless and jobless person could donate 100 per cent.
I agree. I think it's very unlikely FAI could be produced from MIRI's very abstract approach. At least anytime soon.
There are some methods that may work on NN based approaches. For instance my idea for an AI that pretends to be human. In general, you can make AIs that do not have long-term goals, only short term ones. Or even AIs that don't have goals at all and just make predictions. E.g., predicting what a human would do. The point is to avoid making them agents that maximize values in the real world.
These ideas don't solve FAI on their own. But they do give a way of getting useful work out of even very powerful AIs. You could task them with coming up with FAI ideas. The AIs could write research papers, review papers, prove theorems, write and review code, etc.
I also think it's possible that RL isn't that dangerous. Reinforcement learners can't model death and don't care about self-preservation. They may try to hijack their own reward signal, but it's difficult to understand what they would do after that. E.g. if they just tweak their own RAM to have reward = +Inf, and then not do anything else. It may be harder to create a working paperclip maximizer than is commonly believed, even if we do get superintelligent AI.
I agree. FAI somehow should use human upload or human-like architecture for its value core. In this case values will be presented in it in complex and non-ortogonal ways, and at least one human-like creature will survive.
Ignore all the stuff about provably friendly AI, because AFAIK its fairly stuck at the fundamental level of theoretical impossibility due to lob's theorem and its prob going to take a lot more than five years. Instead, work on cruder methods which have less chance of working but far more chance of actually being developed in time. Specifically, if Google are developing it in 5 years, then its probably going to be deepmind with DNNs and RL, so work on methods that can fit in with that approach.
Yes. I think that we need not only workable solution, but also implementable. If someone create 800 pages pdf starting with new set theory, solution of Lob theorem problem etc and come to Google with it and say: "Hi, please, switch off all you have and implement this" - it will not work.
But MIRI added in 2016 the line of research for machine learning.
Get a job at Google or seek to influence the people developing the AI. If, say, you were a beautiful woman you could, probably successfully, start a relationship with one of Google's AI developers.
And how she will use this relation to make safer AI?
Save less because of the high probability that the AI will (a) kill us, (b) make everyone extremely rich, or (c) make the world weird enough so that money doesn't matter.
Good point, but my question was about what we can do to raise chances that it will be friendly AI.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
There is 5 times more members in the group "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)" (9800) in Facebook than in the group "Existential risks" (1880). What we should conclude from it?
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
If we knew that AI will be created by Google, and that it will happen in next 5 years, what should we do?
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
White house also relized a pdf with concrete recommendations: http://barnoldlaw.blogspot.ru/2016/10/intelligence.html
Some interesting lines:
Recommendation 13: The Federal government should prioritize basic and long-term AI research. The Nation as a whole would benefit from a steady increase in Federal and private-sector AI R and D, with a particular emphasis on basic research and long-term, high-risk research initiatives. Because basic and long-term research especially are areas where the private sector is not likely to invest, Federal investments will be important for R and D in these areas.
Recommendation 18: Schools and universities should include ethics, and related topics in security, privacy, and safety, as an integral part of curricula on AI, machine learning, computer science, and data science.