|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Stephen Hawking on AI
#22358496 - 10/10/15 10:34 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The real risk with AI isn’t malice but competence. A superintelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we’re in trouble. You’re probably not an evil ant-hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there’s an anthill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.
There’s no consensus among AI researchers about how long it will take to build human-level AI and beyond, so please don’t trust anyone who claims to know for sure that it will happen in your lifetime or that it won’t happen in your lifetime. When it eventually does occur, it’s likely to be either the best or worst thing ever to happen to humanity, so there’s huge value in getting it right. We should shift the goal of AI from creating pure undirected artificial intelligence to creating beneficial intelligence. It might take decades to figure out how to do this, so let’s start researching this today rather than the night before the first strong AI is switched on.
An AI that has been designed rather than evolved can in principle have any drives or goals. However, as emphasized by Steve Omohundro, an extremely intelligent future AI will probably develop a drive to survive and acquire more resources as a step toward accomplishing whatever goal it has, because surviving and having more resources will increase its chances of accomplishing that other goal. This can cause problems for humans whose resources get taken away.
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/stephen-hawking-on-ai
http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/10/stephen-hawkings-ama/
Definitely sound thinking. Are there any reactions or insights anyone would like to share concerning their views on this subject?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
He watched I,Robot.
--------------------
|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended



Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 2 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Sun King]
#22361676 - 10/11/15 03:23 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You should watch Ex Machina.
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
going to watch it soon.
--------------------
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Keep in mind it is all impossible if the brain is not the producer of consciousness/experience.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Keep in mind it is all impossible if the brain is not the producer of consciousness/experience.
And why is that, necessarily?
Assuming consciousness is a physical process (and everything that exists is a physical process) I see no reason why an advanced computer cannot also participate in that process. Further assuming that consciousness may be a fundamental physical process, I see no reason why such a thing wouldn't be inevitable.
And there's biologically-based quantum computing, anyway. What you say makes no sense, a priori.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
If matter is not the cause of being and it is actually the reverse is true than you would not expect matter to produce experience. So arranging any material physical things could not create being. Perhaps being could possess and machine or material object if it was a suitable medium for experiencing the world but this is a much different idea of AI than people are thinking. All the hype about creating artificial intelligence seems to ignore this and people are much too impressed with the mimicry of intelligence.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
Arctic W. Fox

Registered: 09/23/14
Posts: 1,357
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
|
Someone needs to remove Hawking's batteries.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: If matter is not the cause of being and it is actually the reverse is true than you would not expect matter to produce experience. So arranging any material physical things could not create being. Perhaps being could possess and machine or material object if it was a suitable medium for experiencing the world but this is a much different idea of AI than people are thinking. All the hype about creating artificial intelligence seems to ignore this and people are much too impressed with the mimicry of intelligence.
Well the way I see it, we are organisms that have structures in our brains/nervous systems which basically harvest consciousness. Why can't some other synthetic organism do that? Why can't we design something based on the same physical principles as ourselves? It seems like you're almost arguing that the matter in your body and brain is somehow superfluous. I assure you, your consciousness would mean nothing without it.
You're right that people are thinking about AI in a strictly materialist sense. That doesn't mean that a conscious cybernetic organism cannot exist. You're throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Like I said I guess it is hypothetically possible for consciousness to utalize a synthetic body and experience itself through that. Still the line of causation should be understood, the material object isn't causing that experience or being to exist it is serving an instrument for that being to experience through. It's all way over our heads of how these things take place, how the soul is linked with matter and what not.
Hawkings speel there to me just reflects his materialist ignorance and IMO is very naive, nothing he describes there is a real threat. Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer. In my view experience and being are the real substance to reality and the world of the senses is an illusion. You cannot create something of substance from an illusion.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Well I'm with you on the nature of consciousness. I guess I just have a more open and imaginative stance on the possibilities. You're displaying organic chauvinism, and I feel that there could be an artificial substrate for consciousness -- and will be. I therefore feel that admonitions about the dangers of this future technology should be taken seriously. Time will tell.
Anything is possible, right? I think your assumption that you have to be a biological organism in order to be conscious is quite insular and closed-minded, and lacks imagination. From time immemorial, the predictors of the future have been mocked as rascals promoting the impossible. And, time-after-time, the impossible was done. You may think this is a different threshold, but I don't. It will happen given enough time. Humans are finitely complex.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Like I said I guess it is hypothetically possible for consciousness to utalize a synthetic body and experience itself through that. Still the line of causation should be understood, the material object isn't causing that experience or being to exist it is serving an instrument for that being to experience through. It's all way over our heads of how these things take place, how the soul is linked with matter and what not.
Hawkings speel there to me just reflects his materialist ignorance and IMO is very naive, nothing he describes there is a real threat. Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer. In my view experience and being are the real substance to reality and the world of the senses is an illusion. You cannot create something of substance from an illusion.
How is materialism ignorant and naive? What is it ignorant of?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Intelligence is simply the ability to manipulate data. No consciousness required.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
That they simply assume that matter is what creates this internal subjective experience that we have. Most of the scientists/programmers who are AI enthusiasts simply don't know their philosophy. They have their materialistic world view of which they simply assume to be true and than therefore assume that by creating powerful machine/computers it is going to be inevitable that eventually a conscious experience simply emerge out of this. So they are operating under a philosophical axiom that is becoming more and more discarded by actual philosophers and many quantum physicists.
Here is a good video explaining some of this.. He is a well known critic of AI
Hubert_Dreyfus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus%27s_views_on_artificial_intelligence
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
It isn't an assumption that matter causes consciousness, that's just where the evidence points. The human brain developed over time and conscious experience simply emerged from that, so why couldn't it happen in a computer. Why is organic material so special? It's probably true that a lot of scientists and AI programmers don't know their philosophy, but that doesn't really mean much. Materialism is a philosophical position. There are plenty of philosophers who think about AI.
Nowhere in that video did he expound a non-materialist view. He just said that it is unknown how matter could cause consciousness, which is true. This does not somehow imply that consciousness is outside of the physical world.
Also, that didn't answer the question of what materialism is ignorant of. You are implying that there is some evidence out there that shows materialism to be false. What is this evidence?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Keep in mind it is all impossible if the brain is not the producer of consciousness/experience.
What does consciousness have to do with intelligence?
Are you suggesting a computer without consciousness can't be dangerous?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Rahz]
#22368193 - 10/12/15 01:13 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Also, that didn't answer the question of what materialism is ignorant of. You are implying that there is some evidence out there that shows materialism to be false. What is this evidence?
It's not like "materialism" can be ignorant, people are ignorant. What I am pointing out is that many people just assume that materialism is true without thinking about it critically. Some scientific evidence that materialism may be false is quantum experiments showing non-locality or faster than light interaction between particles (quantum entanglement). Experiments also call into question whether or not realism is true. There is debate as to whether or not locality is false or realism is false but I believe that there is a consensus that both cannot be true.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-violations-local-realism.html
"For years, physicists struggled to definitively answer the question of whether or not entangled states truly violate local realism—that is, do they violate either locality or realism, where realism is simply the assumption that objects exist even when they're not being observed? Although it was long suspected that at least some entangled states violate local realism due to how they seem to instantly influence each other, it wasn't until 1991 that physicist Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva quantitatively demonstrated that all pure entangled states must violate local realism. This result is now known as Gisin's theorem.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-violations-local-realism.html#jCp
There are loads of well accomplished physicists who take the position that materialism is false and that consciousness clearly plays a fundamental role in the universe. For me the logic of materialism is very weak since it has no explanation for subjective experience and I consider the idea to be fundamentally flawed. Nothing coherent can be said about how matter creates experience because the notion that it does is simply incorrect. Even Sam Harris points this out,
"Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle."
Quote:
e human brain developed over time and conscious experience simply emerged from that, so why couldn't it happen in a computer. Why is organic material so special? It's probably true that a lot of scientists and AI programmers don't know their philosophy, but that doesn't really mean much
No it didnt, conscious experience exists long before the human brain evolved. Primitive organism that do not have complex brains like ours still have a subjective inner experience, plants likely do and they dont even have a nervous system. Organic material is not special it is just matter like any other matter, the idea here is that consciousness is the ground of all material things.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Again, what does consciousness have to do with Hawking's fears regarding AI?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Rahz]
#22368449 - 10/12/15 02:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
because what is implied in what he is saying is that they are going to "gain human level intelligence" and by this he means a self-awareness.
"an extremely intelligent future AI will probably develop a drive to survive and acquire more resources as a step toward accomplishing whatever goal it has, because surviving and having more resources will increase its chances of accomplishing that other goal"
notice "drive to survive" as in it is alive. That is what is going to make it a threat. Sure you could just create dangerous machines but the subtle point behind all this talk is that they are going to gain experience and therefore be able to take control of their own destiny and no longer be unconscious automatons.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
lolwut. bacteria has a drive to survive but i doubt it has self-awareness.
|
|