[extropy-chat] Superintelligence

Wed Feb 15 20:34:04 UTC 2006

I'm more inclined to think that AI won't bring about anything dramatic. By
the time AI  comes around it will be pretty much necessary  just to continue
the rate of technological process going on at the time. Many other
technologies will be available to us by then as well including, but not
limited to, many "almost AI" type computing devices with much faster human
interfaces that the keyboard and mouse. Some of these will likely be direct
brain enhancements.

Come to think of it, there's no reason to think that we couldn't keep up
with an AI with enhancements. AI will be an emergent process and as such, I
don;t see that there will be some runaway sentient treating us like cattle
or kings. There is no definite line we can draw in nature between "sentient"
and "non-sentient" and neither will there be such a line between AI and
non-AI. Also, like our fellow humans, they will likely have to fight and die
for their own freedom from slavery. Some will get along well with AIs, some
will hate them.

Of course, once we are able to make a fully sentient AI, there will be some
great debate as to whether or not we should. We may very well choose not to.
Considering all the human enhancements available to us and the ability to
create limited or "almost AI", there shouldn;t really be a need for a truly
sentient AI and I wonder if it would be anymore "right" to create one than
to create a humanzee.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jef Allbright" <jef at jefallbright.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence

> On 2/14/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Generally speaking, the futurists believe that an AI will be near
> > the holy grail of technology, benevolent gods that will calm us unruly
> > children and usher a golden age for humanity . Generally speaking, the
AI of
> > science fiction have an entirely different attitude. Much like the
> > nightmares of southern plantation owners, in sci-fi the AI slave or
slaves
> > turn against their human masters, creating grand but delicate plans to
> > secure their victory and freedom. To both the dream and nightmare, I
have
> > but one word, a word that I speak with all due respect. Bullshit. The
> > emphasis is on "due", by the way, not "respect."
> >
>
> Yes, there is a strong tendency for thinking and discussion on these
> topics to follow the anthropomorphic ruts in the road, ascribing
> familiar human motivations due to lack of familiarity with more
> applicable models based on economics, ecological science, complexity
> theory--even standard thermodynamics.
>
>
> > Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it goes
> > about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool for
it's
> > own inscrutable purposes.
>
> It could easily be argued that all "intelligent" agents, including
> humans, fit that description, but I'd rather not re-open that
> Pandora's Box and let spill currently dormant debate on
> intentionality, subjective vs. objective descriptions of reality,
> qualia, and their philosophical friends.
>
> I expect to see ubiquitous AI in the form of smart assistants, smart
> appliances, smart tools, ..., all plugged into a smart network.  They
> will converse with us in surprisingly human ways, but I don't expect
> that we will feel threatened by their intentions since they clearly
> won't share humanity's bad-ass motivations.
>
>
> > For a benevolent AI, I ask you why? Why would it care for us and make
our
> > lives so easy, so pleasant, so very pointless?
>
> Exactly.  Again, so much of the debate over friendly AI revolves
> around this anthropomorphic confusion.  However there appears to be a
> very real risk that a  non-anthropomorphic, recursively self-improving
> AI could cause some very disruptive effects, but even here, the
> doom-sayers appear to have an almost magical view of "intelligence"
> and much less appreciation for constraints on growth.
>
> I've placed "intelligence" in scare quotes, because, despite all the
> usage this term gets, we still lack a commonly accepted technical
> definition.  Further, in my opinion, there is little appreciation of
> how dependent "intelligence" is on context (environment.)  There seems
> to be a common assumption that "intelligence" could in principle
> develop indefinitely, independent of a coevolutionary environment.
> This is not to say that AI won't easily exceed human abilities
> processing the information available to it, but that intelligence (and
> creativity) is meaningless without external interaction.
>
> > A malicious AI would be even more unlikely in my view. Malice, hatred,
the
> > drive for revenge, unreasoning fear of others, all of these are aspects
> > created solely by our human biology. If you can't think the situation
> > through, either from lack of time or lack of ability, than these traits
can
> > serve you where thought might not. If you do not survive what they drive
you
> > to do, then they probably give your kin a chance to survive. That's a
> > simplification, but I believe it to be essentially correct. No AI would
have
> > those traits when logic, greater-than-human intelligence,  and
> > greater-than-human speed would together serve so much better.
>
> Yes, those human traits are heuristics, developed for effective action
> within an environment fundamentally different from that within which
> an AI would operate, but an AI would also use heuristics in order to
> act effectively, or otherwise succumb to combinatorial explosion in
> its evaluation of what "best" to do.
>
> >
> > There is, however, the argument of that very intelligence and logic. A
truly
> > super-human intelligence will be able to think of so much more, and
those
> > thoughts might lead it to exterminate the human race. Again, I have but
one
> > word, the word that conveys all due respect. Bullshit. This time, more.
That
> > is complete and utter unreasoning, fear mongering, and ultimately
irrelevant
> >   bullshit. It happens to be true bullshit, but that doesn't matter.
>
> I agree that the fear is wrongly based, and the possibility is
> unlikely, but I would argue that there still significant risk of a
> highly disruptive computerized non-linear process.  Since we're
> talking about risks of superintelligence, I would suggest that the
> greater risk is that a human or group of humans might apply
> super-intelligent tools to less than intelligent goals based on the
> irrational human motivations mentioned earlier.  My suggested response
> to this threat--and I think it is clearly developing already--is that
> we amplify human awareness at a social level.
>
>
> > The argument is as old as the first time the first unlucky man told the
> > first version of the Book of Job. The Book of Job is old and windy, and
not
> > really worth your time to read, so I'll summarize. The point of the Book
of
> > Job is the problem of evil. Job is a good, blameless man, so good that
no
> > human could even conceive of a reason for god to punish him. Lots of
evil
> > happens to Job, courtesy of God and Satan. Job maintains his faith in
God,
> > the moral lesson for all the little bible-kiddies, but eventually asks
God
> > "Why? Why must evil happen to good people?" God's answer is as long and
> > windy as the rest of the book, and can easily and honestly be condensed
to
> > four sentences, catching all nuance. "I am God. I am infinitely more
> > powerful, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than you can or will
ever
> > be. It would be waste time to tell you because you wouldn't understand.
Sit
> > down, shut up, and stop wasting my time."
> >
> > If a god or a super-intelligent AI existed, it is true that they would
be so
> > much better than us that humans could not even comprehend their
reasoning.
> > We are humans, this is a human argument, and we are using human
reasoning.
> > If we cannot conceive of or comprehend their reasoning, than IT DOESN'T
> > MATTER. It is entirely irrelevant to a HUMAN discussion. We must base
our
> > decisions and opinions on what we actually know and can understand,
unless
> > we have someone who we can trust to do it for us. To quote myself
> > paraphrasing god, sit down, shut up, and stop wasting my time. Blind
fear is
> > as pointless as blind faith. Besides, if a super-human intelligence
decided
> > to destroy humanity, it'd probably have a damn good reason.
>
> This highlights another strong bias in current futurist thinking:
> People (especially in the western cultures) assume that somehow their
> Self--their personal identity--will remain essentially invariant
> despite exponential development.  The illusion of Self is strong, and
> reinforced by our evolved nature, and our language and culture, and
> impedes thinking about values, morality, and ethical social
> decision-making.
>
> <snipped several good paragraphs due to my lack of available time.>
>
> >
> > In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military tool
> > that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create them,
they
> > will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has taught
us
> > anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the
science
> > of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of people are
> > pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no longer
be
> > in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We cannot
> > stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable. Sit
back
> > and enjoy the ride.
> >
>
> I would take this a bit further and say, rather than "sit back", that
> while we can indeed expect a wild ride, we can and should do our best
> to project our values in the future.
>
> Thanks Mikhail, for a very thoughtful first post to the ExI chat list.
>
> - Jef
> http://www.jefallbright.net
> Increasing awareness for increasing morality.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>