That wasn't what I claimed, I proposed that the current, most promising methods of producing an FAI are far too likely to produce a UFAI to be considered safe
The point I am making is that machine learning, though not provably safe, is the most effective way we can imagine of making the utility function. It's very likely that many AI's are going to be created by this method, and if the failure rate is anywhere near as high as that for humans, this could be very serious indeed. Some misguided person may attempt to create an FAI using machine learning and then we may have the situation in the H+ article
Only a pantheist would claim that evolution is a personal being, and so it can't "try to" do anything. It is, however, a directed process, serving to favor individuals that can better further the species.
But I agree that we shouldn't rely on machine learning to find the right utility function.
How would you suggest we find the right utility function without using machine learning?
I never said not understanding our creations is good; I only said AI research was successful. I have not read Superintelligence, but I appreciate just how dangerous AI could be.
I never claimed that evolution did a good job, but I would argue that it gave us a primary directive; to further the human species. All of our desires are part of our programming; they should perfectly align with desires which would optimize the primary goal, but they don't. Simply put, mistakes were made. As the most effective way of developing optimizing programs we have seen is through machine learning, which is very similar to evolution; we should be very careful of the desires of any singleton created by this method.
...I'm not sure of your assertion th
Okay everyone, I've messed this up again, please leave this post alone, I'll re-upload it again later
But I don't think that MIRI will succeed at building an FAI by non-anthropomorphic means in time.
There is no ghost in a (relatively) simple machine, but an AI is not simple. The greatest success in AI research have been by imitating what we understand of the human mind. We are no longer programming AI's, we are imitating the structure of the human brain and then giving it a directive (for example with Google's deepmind). With AI's, there is a ghost in the machine, i.e. we do not know that it is possible to give a sentient being a prime directive. We have no idea whether it will desire what we want it to desire, and everything could go horribly wrong if we attempt to force it to.
The point of the article is that the greatest effect of FAI research is irony, that in trying to prevent a psychopathic AI we are making it more likely that one will exist, because by mentally restraining the AI we are giving it reasons to hate us
Duly noted
Please read on, I would have removed the snarky intro
Tried...
Hypothetical unfriendliness perpetrated by AI is an untenable concept but the concept has specious validity due to the current scarcity-bias.
Nope, still crap.
Some people want to redefine sentience so that it merely means friendliness.
Where did that come from?
The whole friendliness obsession is tantamount to mental illness, it is extremely irrational, very unbalanced.
Worse and worse.
My original rule of thumb confirmed.
Yeah, I'm not very good at the internet, I didn't realize deleting articles apparently means nothing on this site
Sadly, I think the other title was better. "Is X a good idea" seems open enough to prompt discussion, while "abomination" prompts me to mentally categorize the post as spam.
I love the way that advancedatheist assumes that we're all guys. That, or lesbians.
I admit that it serves my ego suitably to imagine that I am the only conscious human, and a world full of shallow-AI's was created just for me ;-)
The simulators may justify in their minds actual people getting tortured and burnt by suggesting that most of the people will not experience too much suffering, that the simulations would not otherwise have lived (although this fails to distinguish between lives and lives worth living), and that they can end the simulation if our suffering becomes too great. That the hypothetical simulators did not step in during the many genocides in our kind's history may suggest that they either do not exist, or that creating an FAI is more important to them than preventing human suffering.
This co-opts Bostrom's Simulation argument, but a possible solution to the fermi paradox is that we are all AI's in the box, and the simulators have produced billions of humans in order to find the most friendly human to release from the box. Moral of the story, be good and become a god
Seeing as I'm new here, absolutely nothing
It may simply deduce that it is likely to be in a box, in the same way that Nick Bostrom deduced we are likely to be in a simulation. Along these lines, it's amusing to think that we might be the AI in the box, and some lesser intelligence is testing to see if we're friendly
The problem with this is that even if you can determine with certainty that an AI is friendly, there is no certainty that it will stay that way. There could be a series of errors as it goes about daily life, each acting as a mutation, serving to evolve the "Friendly" AI into a less friendly one
Goddamn, I thought I was unpopular