Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People by notahacker on Thursday December 22, 2016 @07:18PM (#13241718)

I think the point (which is addressed with Maciej's Almogadro callback near the end) is that the longer term threat being speculated about and dependent on lots of very hypothetical things being true is pretty much irrelevant in the face of bigger problems. I mean, yes, a superpower that had hard military AI could wreak a lot of havoc. On the other hand, if a superpower wants to wipe out my corner of civilisation it can do so perfectly happily with the weapons at its disposal today (though just to be on the less-safe side, the US President Elect says he wants to build a few more). And when it comes to computer systems and ML, there's a colossal corpus of our communications going into some sort of black box that tries to find evidence of terrorism that's probably more dangerous to the average non-terrorist because it isn't superintelligent.

Ultimately, AI is neither necessary nor sufficient for the powerful to kill the less powerful.

And if it's powerful people trying to build hard military AI, they probably aren't reading LessWrong to understand how to ensure their AI plays nice anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People by FeepingCreature on Friday December 23, 2016 @12:00AM (#13242954)

That's not how risk works.

If we want to grow to adulthood as a species and manage to colonize the cosmos, we need to pass _every_ skill challenge. If in 50 years there'll be a risk of unfriendly superintelligence and it'll have needed 40 years of run-up prep work to make safe, then it will do us absolutely zero good to claim that we instead concentrated on risk of military AI and hey, we got this far, right?

Considering the amount of human utility on the line, "one foot short of the goal" is little better than "stumbled at the first hurdle".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People by notahacker on Friday December 23, 2016 @06:30AM (#13244241)

I think the article dealt pretty well with risk: you survive by focus finite resources on the X% chance of stopping Y% chances of the near elimination of humanity, not the A% chance of stopping a B% probability of an even worse than the near elimination of humanity event where X is large, Y is a small fraction and the product of A and B is barely distinguishable from zero, despite it getting more column inches most of the rest of the near-neglible probability proposed solutions for exceptionally low probability extinction events put together.

I also tend to agree with Maciej that the argument for focusing on the A probability of B is rescued by making the AI threat seem even worse with appeals to human utility like "but what if, instead of simply killing off humanity, they decided to enslave us or keep us alive forever to administer eternal punishment..." either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People by Nevermark on Sunday December 25, 2016 @12:30AM (#13253102)

Well yes, we have finite resources to deploy.

But most resources are not spent on risk mitigation. The question of what priority to give risk mitigation naturally (should) go up the more credible existential risks are identified.

[ Parent | on HN ]