<div><div><div>On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:02 AM Dave Sill <<a href="mailto:sparge@gmail.com" target="_blank">sparge@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>You've made assertions but provided no evidence of them or even definitions of the terms, so debating them is difficult. </div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto">The evidence is this: We have a demonstrated ability to continually improve the efficiency of our computers and algorithms. Our advances in this technology are speeding up, not slowing down. The market and military stakes are driving all the players in this space to improve the capabilities of AI as quickly as possible with absolutely no consideration to slowing down long enough to give any serious consideration to the existential risks. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">China and Google make no pretense about being in an all out AI arms race. And they are hardly the only ones racing. It doesn't take all that much foresight to predict how the story ends.</div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I don't think "godlike intelligence" is equivalent to omnipotence. Intelligence isn't really that powerful all by itself; it's got to be combined with knowledge and the ability to interact with other intelligences/systems in order to effect change. A "perfect" intelligence in a box, without the knowledge that it's in a box and without the power to get out of the box isn't going anywhere.</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto">The essence of machine learning is precisely feeding data (knowledge) to algorithms. Data is a neural network's mother's milk. I suppose one strategy would be to keep the internet a secret from your AI, even one who out-thinks you by several orders of magnitude. But that seems a very feeble plan at best.</div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:".SF UI Text";color:rgb(69,69,69)"><span style="font-family:".SFUIText"">All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to adhere to, modify or abandon those starting points.</span></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Assuming we could design and build such a thing, which is a huge leap given that we haven't achieved idiot-level AI, wouldn't it be pretty foolish to give it unlimited knowledge and power?</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto">It would be immensely foolish. But that's precisely what we're doing our level best to do. An algorithm recently taught itself, from scratch, in a matter of mere hours, to be the best Go player in the thousand year history of the game. I think we're well beyond idiot-level AI.</div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:".SF UI Text";color:rgb(69,69,69);min-height:20.3px"><span style="font-family:".SFUIText"">Once we understand that AGI will be God-like compared to us, we should be able to grasp the intractability of the problem. In fact, it might be helpful to adopt the term GI (for God-like Intelligence) rather than AI or AGI, just to keep us mindful about what we're dealing with.</span></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What exactly does "God-like" mean to you?</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”</div><div dir="auto">Isaiah 55:9 KJV</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">AI won't need to create a universe, or raise a dead man to life (though these feats might not be outside it's ability). All it need do is process information in ways beyond human ability to comprehend, and be able to recursively improve itself. That will be sufficiently God-like enough for me.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div></div><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:".SF UI Text";color:rgb(69,69,69);min-height:20.3px"><span style="font-family:".SFUIText"">Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. From that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner and 7 billion losers, no one wins.</span></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you're right we're undoubtedly screwed, because there's zero chance that all of the parties involved will join hands and sing Kumbaya.</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto">Certainly the odds are pretty close to zero. But let's hope not quite. Otherwise we're both right-we're undoubtedly screwed.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,"Nimbus Sans L",Arial,"Liberation Sans",sans-serif;font-stretch:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;background-image:none;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><b>0<sup style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:inherit;font-style:inherit;font-variant-caps:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;line-height:1;font-size:0.75em;background-image:none">0</sup></b></span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div>
</div>
</div>