John Kluge
-65
1
7
John Kluge has not written any posts yet.
John Kluge has not written any posts yet.
If number 1 is true, then AI isn't a threat. It never will go crazy and cause harm. It will just do a few harmless and quirky things. Maybe that will be the case. If it is, Kudlowsky is still wrong. Beyond that, isn't going to solve these problems. To think that it will is moonshine. It assumes that solving complex and difficult problems are just a question of time and calculation. Sadly, the world isn't that simple. Most of the "big problems" are big because they are moral dilemmas with no answer that doesn't require value judgements and comparisons that simply cannot be solved via sure force of intellect.
As far as... (read 393 more words →)
No it doesn't. It is just more of the same nonsense. "AI could defeat all of humanity" but never explains how that happens. I think what is going on here is very intelligent people are thinking about these things. Being intelligent, their blind spot is to grossly over estimate the importance of raw intelligence. So, they AI as being more intelligent than all of humanity and then immediately assume that means it will defeat and enslave humanity as if intelligence were the only thing that mattered. It isn't the only thing that matters. The physical and brute force matters too. Smart people have a bad habit of forgetting that.
Oh really? Will it have the ability to run an entire lab robotically to do that? If not, then it won't be the AI doing anything. It will be the people doing it. Its power to do anything in the physical world only exists to the extent humans are willing to grant it.
If the US doesn't develop it, you can be assured that China and Russia will. US scientists are likely to develop it more quickly. Assuming it is possible, Chinese and Russian scientists, given enough time and resources will develop it eventually. If it is possible, there is no stopping it from happening. Someone will do it. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.
I live in the physical world. For a computer program to kill me, it has to have power over the physical world and some physical mechanism to do that. So, anyone claiming that AI is going to destroy humanity needs to explain the physical mechanism by which that will happen. This article like every other one I have seen making that argument fails to do that.
Assuming for the sake of argument that uncontrollable strong AI can be created, I disagree with Mr Yudowski's claim that it is a threat to humanity. In fact, I don't think it is going to be useful at all. First, there still is such a thing as the physical world. Okay, there is strong AI, it can't be controlled and it decides to murder humanity. How is it going to do that? You can't murder me in the cyber realm. You can aggravate me or harm me but you can't kill me. If you want to claim that AI is going to wipe out humanity, then you need to explain the physical... (read 679 more words →)
There are so many unexamined assumptions in this argument. Why do you assume that a super intelligent AI would find humanity wanting? You admit it would be different than us. So, why would it find us inferior? We will have qualities it doesn't have. There is nothing to say it wouldn't find itself wanting. Moreover, even if it did, why is it assumed that it would then decide humanity must be destroyed? Where does that logic come from? That makes no sense. I suppose it is possible but I see no reason to think that is certain or some sort of necessary conclusion. I find dogs wanting but I don't desire to... (read more)