I was hoping there would be more discussion about the actual attempts to regulate which are based on fears of misinformation, copyright infringement, and so on. In the hearings today, there was no discussion about AI ending the world.
One of the interesting things is the fact the “AI” solves problems in ways that are difficult to understand for humans. This is a huge limitation from an engineering standpoint because unless that “AI” can find a solution that is 100% correct then much of the work it does isn’t very useful since getting it from 90% to 100% becomes much harder than usual.
Somethings always rubbed me up about all this about AI....I think it's amazing, not scary....just think of the possibilities. And I personally think that we will never reach artificial general intelligence in our lifetime and possibly ever.
Educational show. There is the concept of "Fully Automated Luxury Communisn" or FALC that is espoused by people on the Left, yet I have also heard leftists eagerly espouse the dangers of AI. I would think that they would embrace AI. I would like to see this apparent inconstincency addressed.
Just about any technology is "dual-use," i.e., it can be used to benefit humanity and/or the biosphere, or misused in ways that are harmful. The more powerful a technology is, the greater its promise _and_ peril. E.g., nuclear energy can be used to provide electricity (among other beneficial uses), or end human civilization. AI, especially AGI or ASI (artificial superintelligence) will be the most powerful technology humans have ever created, assuming it works as promised. Thus, it makes sense for anybody (Leftist or otherwise) to embrace its potential while being concerned about its dangers. Furthermore, the Left-Right political axis does not address views on technology. That would be better addressed with a second axis (call it Forward and Back) that defines whether someone is in favor of continuing technological advancement, or prefers a more "low-tech" suite of technologies. Alternatively, one can believe that Progress (or Regress) is inevitable. WRT FALC, it would be interesting to see what Objectivists think of it, assuming that it's possible (i.e. no resource limits or other barriers prevent it from happening). Since Objectivism holds that productivity (work) is central to a moral person's purpose in life, the idea that robots/AI could do all the work and leave humans able to live as a leisure class in a crystal-spires-and-togas utopia would seem to be a threat to the Objectivist world-view.
AI is just one step in the evolution in software. It will be obsolete well before two more decades pass. Rules-based systems are faster and more robust. If AI assists in creating the rules, then the rules-based system skirts the regulations. (:
“If Elon Musk is wrong about artificial intelligence and we regulate it who cares. If he is right about AI and we don't regulate it we will all care.” -Dave Waters
I was hoping there would be more discussion about the actual attempts to regulate which are based on fears of misinformation, copyright infringement, and so on. In the hearings today, there was no discussion about AI ending the world.
The threats to regulate natural intelligence are discussed by Rand in Comprachicos.
One of the interesting things is the fact the “AI” solves problems in ways that are difficult to understand for humans. This is a huge limitation from an engineering standpoint because unless that “AI” can find a solution that is 100% correct then much of the work it does isn’t very useful since getting it from 90% to 100% becomes much harder than usual.
Great guest. I've encouraged people to go to ChatGPT and have a...chat with it. I think rational people will find no reason to fear it. 🙂
Somethings always rubbed me up about all this about AI....I think it's amazing, not scary....just think of the possibilities. And I personally think that we will never reach artificial general intelligence in our lifetime and possibly ever.
The last thing we need is to get birocrats makeing decisions about who gets to use AI.
burrocrats. Better, burrocraps.
hello from CO.
Educational show. There is the concept of "Fully Automated Luxury Communisn" or FALC that is espoused by people on the Left, yet I have also heard leftists eagerly espouse the dangers of AI. I would think that they would embrace AI. I would like to see this apparent inconstincency addressed.
bruh
@unsigned 32_bit_indiviualist aka doublethink
Just about any technology is "dual-use," i.e., it can be used to benefit humanity and/or the biosphere, or misused in ways that are harmful. The more powerful a technology is, the greater its promise _and_ peril. E.g., nuclear energy can be used to provide electricity (among other beneficial uses), or end human civilization.
AI, especially AGI or ASI (artificial superintelligence) will be the most powerful technology humans have ever created, assuming it works as promised. Thus, it makes sense for anybody (Leftist or otherwise) to embrace its potential while being concerned about its dangers.
Furthermore, the Left-Right political axis does not address views on technology. That would be better addressed with a second axis (call it Forward and Back) that defines whether someone is in favor of continuing technological advancement, or prefers a more "low-tech" suite of technologies. Alternatively, one can believe that Progress (or Regress) is inevitable.
WRT FALC, it would be interesting to see what Objectivists think of it, assuming that it's possible (i.e. no resource limits or other barriers prevent it from happening). Since Objectivism holds that productivity (work) is central to a moral person's purpose in life, the idea that robots/AI could do all the work and leave humans able to live as a leisure class in a crystal-spires-and-togas utopia would seem to be a threat to the Objectivist world-view.
A moratorium on artificial brains
AI is just one step in the evolution in software. It will be obsolete well before two more decades pass. Rules-based systems are faster and more robust. If AI assists in creating the rules, then the rules-based system skirts the regulations.
(:
Good point
I ROBOT was good film.
It was ok... but a bit unrealistic..
“If Elon Musk is wrong about artificial intelligence and we regulate it who cares. If he is right about AI and we don't regulate it we will all care.” -Dave Waters
a.k.a. Dave Waters' Wager
AI is free.