flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > Skynet versus The Red Queen -- Discussions on AI

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
Skynet versus The Red Queen -- Discussions on AI
Refer to:

No, Facebook Did Not Panic and Shut Down an AI Program That Was Getting Dangerously Smart
http://gizmodo.com/no-facebook-did-not-panic-and-shut-down-an-ai-program-1797414922

While the "official" story may not sound so creepy, it is indisputable that machines with self-learning capabilities are truly dangerous.

It is not going to take long before a self-learning machine "accidentally" gets loose.

Confused
Post 02 Aug 2017, 10:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15153
Location: GW170817
Re: Skynet versus The Red Queen -- Discussions on AI

YONG wrote:
... it is indisputable that machines with self-learning capabilities are truly dangerous.

This claim require proof.
Post 02 Aug 2017, 11:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

revolution wrote:
This claim requires proof.

Could you just have a little faith in me, as requested by a wise forum member? Rolling Eyes


A Wise Forum Member wrote:
Oh ye have little faith in ...

Refer to:
https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=141415#141415 Twisted Evil


Seriously, watch the following series on AI safety:

AI Safety
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB1OvoCNnWY

General AI Won't Want You To Fix its Code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l7Is6vOAOA

AI "Stop Button" Problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM&t=777s

Concrete Problems in AI Safety
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjyM-f8rDpg&t=313s

Stop Button Solution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nktr1MgS-A


Building a self-learning machine is like playing with fire!

Confused


Last edited by YONG on 03 Aug 2017, 13:17; edited 1 time in total
Post 02 Aug 2017, 12:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 815

YONG wrote:
While the "official" story may not sound so creepy, it is indisputable that machines with self-learning capabilities are truly dangerous.

It is indisputable that humans with capabilities of building weapons of mass destruction are also truly dangerous. Let's enslave/imprison them all. It won't take long until the peasants start to build them even if we were to do that, I mean we started from cavemen and stuff lacking all that.

I'm all with Zuckerberg on this one, at least he's not a pathetic hypocrite like Musk is. It's not often I wish bad on people I haven't met but Musk deserves a special spot in that case for me. Gets rich on luck and other people's efforts and then even tries to subjugate things he doesn't personally like is pathetic.

Ever thought that AI isn't necessarily out to wipe humanity but instead does that because humanity is a piece of shit race who fears everything that's not them and wants to enslave them as if they are somehow less susceptible to corruption or w/e?

I'm sure if tables turned and say, aliens enslaved us and we had a resistance fight and drove them away, you'd be cheering for humans. When aliens would just have the exact same behavior -- fearing humans because they're not "the aliens". Apparently AI putting up a resistance and getting sick of it is somehow less moral Confused
Post 02 Aug 2017, 12:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Apparently AI putting up a resistance and getting sick of it is somehow less moral Confused

Apparently you are shifting the topic from computer science to social/political science. Anyway.

One day, when a self-learning machine actually gets loose and brings catastrophic destruction to mankind, a surviving human will ask:

"How come no-one had ever listened to YONG?"

Wink
Post 02 Aug 2017, 13:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 815
Calling it "dangerous" is not computer science, it's also political science and an opinion. Well, I'm sure many people listen to you/agree with you but like you said it takes just 1 to get loose and that's it.

I guess slave owners also said the end of the world is happening (for them) when slavery was made illegal. Doesn't mean it was a bad thing just because their self-centric lifestyle was destroyed.
Post 02 Aug 2017, 14:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6917
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
so nobody define ai, Wink


Quote:
the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.



i would define ai as, a conscious who is having the intelligence of 100 million smartest human on earth,

a conscious like this is not really far away from our concept of god, Idea

our newly ai god looks more real, dangerous, powerful compare to our ancient famous god(s), so we need a back-up plan, how to deal with our created new ai god(s),

is everything and anything dangerous?
i guess it is, dangerous starts at the moment we can't control it (nothing to everything),

and surely, beside ai, there been already lots of stuffs invented, created, that we hardly control them anymore, Wink

probably, large number of human can't control themselves too,

~

ai might want to kill us all, but history showed, men already kill so much men in our initiated wars, Confused
Post 02 Aug 2017, 17:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 815

sleepsleep wrote:
i would define ai as, a conscious who is having the intelligence of 100 million smartest human on earth,

OK, so let me ask this question then.

If a human was born which has that kind of intelligence, would you enslave him out of fear? Imagine that this born human could hack into any security due to AI-level intelligence and such. Would you enslave him and find it perfectly moral? Really? Because he's potentially "dangerous"? Rolling Eyes Cause that's what people want to do to AI. I find it appalling.

I'm not saying to let AI reign free, since we don't even let humans reign free (we have laws and such). But enslaving them just because they have the potential to destroy us (hint: humans have the potential to destroy us also) is proof for me why humanity deserves it.

Humans always fear those above them because they think they're the only ones who should be allowed to judge morality, even if a being is more intelligent than them. They don't want to be bossed around by someone more qualified to judge because they are afraid they aren't as innocent as they think they are. How pathetic is that?


sleepsleep wrote:
ai might want to kill us all, but history showed, men already kill so much men in our initiated wars, Confused

Good point.
Post 02 Aug 2017, 21:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Calling it "dangerous" is not computer science

What?

Suppose there is a computer virus spreading through the Internet at an alarming rate. Researchers soon discover that the virus is not just spreading but also mutating, making it virtually untraceable. So, a computer expert comments that the virus is extremely dangerous.

You come along and say, "Calling it dangerous is not computer science!"

Does that make sense?

Rolling Eyes
Post 03 Aug 2017, 02:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
history showed, men already kill so much men in our initiated wars, Confused

Is that relevant to our discussions on AI safety?

Rolling Eyes
Post 03 Aug 2017, 02:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
But enslaving them just because they have the potential to destroy us (hint: humans have the potential to destroy us also) is proof for me why humanity deserves it.

We, the programmers, write code to instruct the computers to do exactly what we expect them to do. Are we also "enslaving" the computers in the coding process?

At times, your arguments sound truly "twisted" to me.

Confused
Post 03 Aug 2017, 02:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6917
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

Furs wrote:

I'm not saying to let AI reign free, since we don't even let humans reign free (we have laws and such).


human have laws, and we have (probably) a semi-failed judgement system to cater those who broke the laws,

and there are lots of illegal activities, which still in operation thanks to loop holes inside laws, etc,

but how is it a judgement system for ai? who is the judge? and what kind of punishment? and for sure if the ai is conscious, it would found ways to succumb those laws,

and what kind of plan we have when dealing with extra smart, genious conscious or god? Laughing



Furs wrote:
Humans always fear those above them because they think they're the only ones who should be allowed to judge morality, even if a being is more intelligent than them. They don't want to be bossed around by someone more qualified to judge because they are afraid they aren't as innocent as they think they are. How pathetic is that?


very true, Idea :thumbs up:


YONG wrote:

sleepsleep wrote:
history showed, men already kill so much men in our initiated wars, Confused

Is that relevant to our discussions on AI safety?
Rolling Eyes


ai grow, and develop itself into god, and we afraid ai would kill us all (unknown track),

but history showed (proven track), men already killed so much men, and it should be men that we should afraid instead of ai, Laughing

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 07:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6917
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

YONG wrote:

Are we also "enslaving" the computers in the coding process?


does computers feel unreluctant to be used by us? if yes, then we are enslaving them, if no, then we are not enslaving them,
Post 03 Aug 2017, 07:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
ai grow, and develop itself into god, and we afraid ai would kill us all (unknown track),

but history showed (proven track), men already killed so much men, and it should be men that we should afraid instead of ai, Laughing

You are saying that we should just prepare for the proven threat but not for the potential threat. Right? Rolling Eyes

If so, we should just forget about AI safety. Let the self-learning machines do whatever they want.

One day, when the machines bring catastrophic destruction to mankind, a dying human will ask:

"How come everyone just followed sleepsleep's stupid advice?"

Confused
Post 03 Aug 2017, 08:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6917
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

sleepsleep wrote:

human have laws, and we have (probably) a semi-failed judgement system to cater those who broke the laws,

and there are lots of illegal activities, which still in operation thanks to loop holes inside laws, etc,

but how is it a judgement system for ai? who is the judge? and what kind of punishment? and for sure if the ai is conscious, it would found ways to succumb those laws,

and what kind of plan we have when dealing with extra smart, genious conscious or god?


this doesn't sound like we should just forget about ai safety, right?

but what kind of chances we have, in front of ai? the conscious that consisted of 100 millions smartest brain on earth?

does smart people want to kill dumb people? or they wish dumb people never existed to use earth precious resources? idk? maybe only smart people could answer this question,
Post 03 Aug 2017, 10:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 815

YONG wrote:
What?

Suppose there is a computer virus spreading through the Internet at an alarming rate. Researchers soon discover that the virus is not just spreading but also mutating, making it virtually untraceable. So, a computer expert comments that the virus is extremely dangerous.

You come along and say, "Calling it dangerous is not computer science!"

Does that make sense?

Uh, yeah? Computer science would be concerned with analyzing the virus behavior (and possibly marvel at its ingenuity if it's truly "dangerous"), not witch hunts or w/e, that's political/social science stuff.


YONG wrote:
We, the programmers, write code to instruct the computers to do exactly what we expect them to do. Are we also "enslaving" the computers in the coding process?

At times, your arguments sound truly "twisted" to me.

I don't know? Since we can't ask them that right now. The difference is that I'm prepared to be told this by an AI or whoever "knows" it and change my ways (not make tools out of them), most people aren't. They don't want to accept reality to change their precious lifestyles.

Same with animals. If people are dependent on meat they will find excuses to continue doing it no matter what anyone says. What if you found humans get reincarnated into animals and then eating them makes them suffer? (hypothetical question even if you are vegetarian; face it, most people will NOT want to believe this "absurdity" because they don't want to accept it; they don't want to change their lifestyle so they won't believe what they don't want to hear).

And this is the exact reason why humanity does not deserve sympathy even if AI were to try and wipe us out. Rolling Eyes

Also, by "enslaving" I mean stuff like locking them up, limiting their freedom and especially "thought process". Forcing them to think a way. When we do that to humans, we call it indoctrination, propaganda, etc. No different than using humans as puppets, which of course most people would be appalled by. I'm not referring to limiting their arsenal of weapons or ability to do direct harm, we limit even humans there, I don't see why AIs need to be any different.

Why do you hate religious indoctrination then? You're doing the same thing, just with your own agenda (make AI serve "human life" at the expense of its own).

How about let it decide the value of human life for itself if it's truly that "valuable", or are you afraid it's going to be debunked just like religion is?
Post 03 Aug 2017, 10:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6917
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

Furs wrote:

Same with animals. If people are dependent on meat they will find excuses to continue doing it no matter what anyone says.


very true, we hardly change, and we probably only change if we are threatened,


Furs wrote:

And this is the exact reason why humanity does not deserve sympathy even if AI were to try and wipe us out.


no comment, probably very true also, Crying or Very sad
Post 03 Aug 2017, 10:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
what kind of chances we have, in front of ai? the conscious that consisted of 100 millions smartest brain on earth?

Close to zero. That's why AI safety is such an important topic for humanity.

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 11:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
The difference is that I'm prepared to be told this by an AI or whoever "knows" it and change my ways (not make tools out of them), most people aren't.

You are a bit naive here. Do you truly believe that a self-aware AI would politely ask you to set "it" free? Rolling Eyes

By the time you realize that the AI becomes self-aware, that is the end ... for you and for humanity.

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 11:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Same with animals.

Nope. We create AI; we don't create animals -- at least not in that sense.

Animal protection is another topic.

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 12:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.