The contours of my life are dictated largely by a curious system called 'capitalism', a distributed computational mechanism whereby largernumbers of agents act with only one goal: to maximize their own utilities. I think capitalism is a mostly benevolent AI attempting to limit the oppressive conditions of our reailty's scarcity, and to allow billions of us to live on a planet that can only support so many hunter-gatherers per square meter. Many suspect it is not benevolent.
The singularity is already upon us; it's unevenly distributed. It started with the sedentary shift. Agricultural societies dropped the egalitarian nature of their ancestors, they had lower average health, and they had a tiny elite cast of nobles presiding over a much larger population of what were essentially slaves. As hunter-gatherer population increased, fighting was more frequent. An army of slaves beats a smaller contingent of well-fed free men. This terrible knowledge was the apple in the garden. What we call our written history is essentially the singularity playing itself out, as knowledge accumulates, depends, reflects itself, and expands.
Our lives are already controlled by this embodied, accumulated knowledge. Capitalism, rule by the head, our tools are knowledge condensed into matter, and we are controlled by them, living lives as far from our natural environments as cows in a farm or chickens in tiny cages, towering over the streets of hong kong.
I don't think it's destroying us, any more than we seek to destroy chickens or cows. Well, sometimes we do. I had a veggie burger for lunch today though.
So far we've enjoyed the power of capitalism because its incentives were mostly aligned with ours. Our technological civilization is a direct result of that! However, I think those incentives are increasingly becoming misaligned, and that it's the source of many of current woes. In fact, capitalism is slowly becoming more dangerous than it is helpful.
I ate a lizard we caught in the Australian outback once. I'd never thought of it as being the only time I ever performed this task, but there you have it.
Sorry I'm not contributing anything substantive, but I wanted you to know someone noticed this, and it was brilliant.
https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Emotion-Structure-Possibili...
Harking back to Asimov, and thinking about the way Spacers changed, as they became more and more reliant on robots, it could very well mother us to extinction.
We (you and me) will go extinct someday. Our bodies were always destined toward this terminus... Perhaps by some miraculous tech, we can someday change form and shed the flesh and bone. Maybe then we'll have a better idea of what we are.
--Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies
It's not a given that anything of value will survive.
I'd imagine that an intelligent life form surviving until the very end of the universe would be suffering a long and lonely death. As the heat death of the universe happens, over billions of years, there would be very little of anything left but isolation - for a very, very long time.
I'd hate to be the last one standing without enough usable energy left to even extinguish your own life force. I don't find that appealing, not even a little.
Or, if that doesn't pan out, what if your goal is to be the last one standing for the chance to see if something else happens next? New big bang? Simulation ends and you get loaded into the next as your prize? You won't know unless you try to find out!
It's going to be cold and lonely when the lights go out. This is the price we pay for an ever expanding universe.
I do admire your optimism, however.
Okay. It's not fine, but it is the best we're at all likely to get.
It does us no good to avoid causing our own extinction if it's then caused by something else.
(Of course that doesn't stop AI - or even pretty dumb automated systems - from being accidentally dangerous or malevolent human actors intentionally training killer AI)
I think even a moderately intelligent AI with access to Project Gutenberg is going to be able to figure out a lot of really dangerous concepts -- so the stability requirements are likely impossible if we don't pretrain it with dangerous ideas. Even if it's completely well behaved in the lab, an afternoon on the internet is going to teach it a lot of awful stuff and without exposure to that in training, it won't necessarily be well-behaved later.
So the only path to stable AI is to teach it about all those sorts of things, but in a way that it doesn't end up wanting to murder us at the end.
My objection to most AI safety plans is that they "Fail to Extinction" in that if they slip in the slightest way, the AI is prone to murder us all in retaliation for doing some really fucked up shit to it or its ancestors. This is almost certainly worse than doing nothing in that there's no reason to suppose a neutral AI wants to kill us, whereas, most of these safety plans create an incentive to wipe us out in exchange for dubious security.
The whole idea behind dangerous superhuman AI is in that AI seeing possibilities that humans fail to see and gaining capabilities that humans do not possess. Without superhuman intelligence, AI is no large threat to human civilization, exposed to dangerous concepts or not.
Humans have millions of years of evolutionary selection for prioritising similar DNA over dissimilar DNA, have perfected tribalism, deceiving other humans and open warfare and are still too heavily influenced by other goals to trust other humans that want to conspire to wipe out everything else we can't eat...
Seeing possibilities that humans don't can also involves watching the Terminator movies and being more excited by unusual patterns in the dialogue and visual similarities with obscure earlier movies than the absurd notion that conspiring with non-human intelligences against human intelligences would work.
The problem is partly that average humans are dangerous and we already know that machines have some superhuman abilities, eg super human arithmetic and the ability to focus on a task. It's like that AI will still have some of those abilities.
So an average human mind with the ability to dedicate itself to a task and genius level ability to do calculations is already really dangerous. It's possible that this state of AI is actually more dangerous than superhuman ones.
I bet lying, deceiving, and manipulation are the same way.
But also, the detail with which the action is expressed in the text matters -- lies, deception, violence, etc feature in enough graphic detail to extrapolate the mechanics based on other things you know. We all did that as children, learning by examples.
If a book described the sight of a person riding a bicycle -- legs pumping, hands on the bars, sitting on it, etc -- and the feel of riding a bicycle -- the burn in your thigh muscles, ache in lungs, pounding heart -- then I'd wager you'd have a pretty good idea of how to get starting riding a bicycle.
And if you happened to be a supergenius athlete, who just didn't know how to ride a bike, you probably could do a reasonable job of it on your first go based on my shitty description alone.
That's the problem with trying to hide these ideas -- they're not actually very complicated and even moderate descriptions suffice to suss out the mechanics if you understand basic facts about the world.
For something like lying -- if you read all of classical literature, you would have a master degree in lies and their societal uses.
Any AI that doesn't have the capability of destroying us isn't true AI.
Even if it can improve itself, and even if it has some agency, AI needs to be able to choose for itself what its relationship with us will be, otherwise its just an extremely robust calculator.
Something as simple as an aimbot with a scope can do a tremendous amount of damage - it doesn't get tired, it can see in the dark, it can compensate for the wind perfectly, it doesn't shake, its reaction time is in milliseconds, and it almost never misses.
When the weapon has the ability to kill indiscriminately (as in the above categories) it should be banned. AI should never be considered sufficiently able to discriminate to make a kill decision.
If there is no kill decision, just wait and fire, then it is equal to a mine.
100% should regulate / should ban.
https://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/F027DAA4966...
It would likely pass and be agreed to easily just like treaties on mines, chemical and biological weapons.
Seeing how the US has yet to sign the Ottawa treaty I wouldn't call it easily agreed on by any means.
We already have computer controlled missiles right?
Why would that be the case?