Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:14 pm
There is of course a real difference between the intelligence of humans and that of AIs. And it is a simple difference.
Humans have a universal intelligence and one that is very sturdy, essentially by taking into account a very large set of data, systematically way beyond what is strictly necessary to solve the problem as narrowly defined. If a human can't get through the door, he will try the window and won't stop until he finds and alternative way of solving the problem.
AIs by comparison have an extraordinarily narrow intelligence. As soon as there is a hiatus, the AIs just stops, unless it fails and kills someone.
Yet, that kind of AIs can already replace actual jobs. And then, where's the limit?
EB
1. What is your conception of a 'problem' ?
2. A narrow intelligence can still kill every living human by simply being very good at its single purpose.
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:23 pm
2. A narrow intelligence can still kill every living human by simply being very good at its single purpose.
Of course. Even a very stupid machine replicating viruses for scientific use may destroy humanity if it fails to replicate the thing properly and inadvertently create a super-bug. Nothing new here. The example you quote is an adequate warning but we're doing so many things new that it's very unlikely one of them doesn't kill millions sooner or later..
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:23 pmThe AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.
—Eliezer Yudkowski
Exactly. In fact, one danger is to come to think of smart AIs as artificial humans. No. They are truly machines in that their failure modes are typical of machines, as your example aptly demonstrate. Some people will fall in love with these things and that in itself is still another cause for mayhem.
EB
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:54 pm
People can make one argument and when that doesn't work, they can make another argument. I cannot find a resolution because the arguments keep changing. As long as this keeps going on resolution is not possible.
The arguments keep changing because the problem is ill-defined.
That's a short way of saying: nobody has good answers. Neither to the technical; nor the socio-political challenges.
Some people may want to put a spin on intelligence. I want to take it off by calling AI a substitute for intelligence. There is nothing technical nor socio-political in that.
You are segregating intelligences based on what they are made of rather than what they do. Your motive for that seems to be socio-political.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:00 pm
Your motive for that seems to be socio-political.
Sometimes motive is speculation, sometimes it is opinion and sometimes it is meant to cast suspicion without foundation, absolutely no foundation at all.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:06 am
I am concerned with the effect that artificial intelligence has on human intelligence. Will it effect how we are taught, what we are taught, how human intelligence will be utilized?
So ... this counts as a statement of some sort of motivation? Or is this some special, non-motivating 'concern' that you have?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:36 pm
AI is, and for a pretty long time to come, more of a marketing term than a description of anything.
I remember a spoof from the 80s. "Term "Client/Server" invented... advertising industry sighs a big sigh of relief."
Maybe we can use AI as an artificial replacement of Trump, in our solemn and honest fight against PC.
For instance:
"A computer scientist using AI has discovered via mathematical proof, that women actually LIKE being pinched in the buttocks, and that guys are NOT all gay, gay positive, or curious."
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:36 pm
AI is, and for a pretty long time to come, more of a marketing term than a description of anything.
I remember a spoof from the 80s. "Term "Client/Server" invented... advertising industry sighs a big sigh of relief."
Is it time for Big Data 2.0 to revolutionise the Information Superhighway yet?
Ah! "I feel I'm a road kill on the Information Superhighway." Typical saying from the early eighties.
And I watched an internet interview or panel discussion on Big Data. All four or five brainiac panelists said this, or something similar in effect: "Big data! Wee-whoo! Yeeha, big data! We don't know what to do with big data, but it's big! This is so big, this big data! Wheee, this is going to change everthing. Once we learn wtf we can do with it."
I am not lying. This was the gist of each panelist's statement.
