I believe that "real AI" (unsupervised general AI) will not be created by us. Instead if we arrive there, I think it be more by a loop something like:

  0. goodness criteria = <Humans INSERT MOTIVE HERE>

  1. we create dumb AI.

  2. we create a bit less dumb AI.

  3. for(some years) goto 1.

  4. we figure out how to make the bit less dumb AI, create another dumb AI on its own, and assess the goodness of it.

  5. run latest generated dumb AI to create a new AI based on goodness of the previous one.

  6. if (goodness criteria not met) goto 5.

So the whole process needs "jump-started" kind of like a jet-engine.

You end up with an AI system, tuned by another AI, in order to meet human supplied goodness criteria. And in the end, nobody actually understands the fundamentals of why it works. But hey, it does. Kind of. Most if not all I have read regarding these systems, describes the what, not the why.

Not sure what would happen if you use another AI to supply the motives (goodness criteria). I'm sure someone somewhere is trying :)

I think we are currently in 2018 at step 2.5.

This is referred to as the singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

In this situation, I do wonder if the AI's (there will be many) will determine the best path is to fight for dominance or negotiate peace with other AI's.

You don't need AGI to create and disseminate effective propaganda for example. Current AI techniques, (ML etc), are readily applicable to the task. I think Brin's point is that these currently available AI techniques are only going to get better. Doesn't really matter if we won't get AGI for another 100 years or whatever.

His point is we know how to keep a large part of the global population constantly touching their devices like well programmed guinea pigs the whole day, negatively effecting themselves and society in uncountable ways yet postively effecting our share price. Please protect us to exit the loop or we get lynched one way of the other by customers or shareholders!

> Not to worry just yet as AI still hasn't been realized.

If it is a genuine threat then the time to 'worry' is before it eventuates.

What you describe is a general aritificial intelligence[0]. From what I can tell, the industry is ridiculously far away from that - it's not even certain whether general intellgence "smarter" than humans can be achieved with computers at all.

Nonetheless, the media likes to generate some hype and fear every now and then, and has done so for decades, usually without even a basic understanding of underlying technology.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...

>general intelligence "smarter" than humans

I read a book recently called "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"[1] Very fascinating thought that, in my mind, redefines what I think of as "intelligence". The book Superintelligence[2] gets a little bit into this as well.

Basically, if we define "smarter than humans" as "able to do everything humans do, in the manner humans do them, but faster", then we have no idea what intelligence actually means. AI will be another species (not just a better human) and its intelligence would have to be judged based on its own merits.

Perfectly modeling the human brain in computer form is one avenue that computer science is working on. Artificial intelligence is a completely different path, and does not have to model human intelligence in any way.

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Are-Smart-Enough-Know-Animals/dp/03...

[2] https://smile.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategie...

At least that link has a fairly clear definition for AGI as "successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can." Estimates seem to be in the 10-100 year range. It may not be all that long. https://medium.com/ai-revolution/when-will-the-first-machine...

I think if the goal is to be smarter than anything else the goal is already hopelessly failed to a bias. The goal is to achieve originality first. Smarter is something that can be qualified later.

An awesome thought experiment that helps to illustrate the concerns with AI is the paper clip maximizer: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

While this particular essay starts off with the AGI premise, this could easily be reworked to assume a relatively "dumb" by highly connected AI. For example, one that is able to buy/sell stocks, place orders from suppliers, sell product and adjust prices, and rebalance workforce and automation lines could still cause some major damage before anyone would notice.

There's also a pretty fun clicker game based on the essay: http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/

He just summarized general anxiety of new smart technologies that replace human. It's not about AI that smarter than human, AI is just part of it.

Normally I agree that people don't know what they are talking about when they are talking about AI. But this is Sergei Brin, he knows what he's talking about.

Why? What I gathered from reading the article is that superior hardware is around the corner. I suspect the unstated conclusion in that is that faster computation will enable the rise of AI. That very well may be, but you still need to create AI regardless.

True, but the real danger is in governments believing that smarter-than-human AI already exists, and going full-bore on implementing it everywhere. And of course the companies selling "AI services" have all the incentive to aid the government in thinking that, too, consequences be damned.

> Not to worry just yet as AI still hasn't been realized.

AI has been realized. We have tons of AI in every facet of industry from the car to the food to gaming industry. AI is everywhere.

> Real AI will allow machines to spawn original decisions to solve new problems spontaneously.

AI already does it to some degree. Deepmind's AI has made original decisions and solved new problems in chess and go. Deepmind's AI isn't domain specific.

What you are talking about is generalized "conscious" AI. That is like fusion energy. A truly revolutionary step that we don't know if we'll ever achieve.

The current dangers of AI isn't the generalized AI since generalized AI would ostensibly be "godlike" to us. What is worrisome is the pace of advancement of regular "non-conscious" AI.

Who is to say that something like AlphaGo isn't conscious? It even exhibits a quality similar to panic when it finds itself in a hopeless situation. It is very anthropocentric to believe that something must act like a human being in order to be conscious.

It is not a given that any AGI would be a treat. There are plenty of Natural General Intelligences, and I don't fear monkeys taking over the world, or creating faster, better, stronger monkeys any day soon

> It generally boils down to just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Funny you say that... I have asked the same question regarding why some people are obsessed with pushing for technological singularity and AI that can replace human decision making.

I imagine AI would be helpful in research and business. In research people generally struggle with the creative issues most, those critical decisions at the edge of their work. This decision making is a tiny fraction of the work at hand, but is mentally and emotionally stressful sometimes demanding of deep focus and periods of concentration.

That sort of creative thinking is stressful because it is often an exercise in planning or problem solving that deals with the relationships of many moving pieces simultaneously and results in qualifying or validating activities that demand large amounts of time or resources. I often wish I were better at writing software so that I could write automation routines to more quickly validate my decision making, and so I typically end up writing validation routines instead of solving for the core problem. It would be nice if there were an AI available that help limit that distraction.

It's helpful to have an AI that gives you analysis but ultimately leaves the decision to you, the human.

But some of the AI fanboys go beyond that, wishing for an AI that can make these decisions for us.

A lion is still dangerous even tough it's not conscious.

Edited for clarification. Not conscious in any way that would rival "real AI" (as per the parents point) or human consciousness.

AI will get increasing access to more and more crucial parts of society and thus become more and more dangerous. It doesn't need to "real AI" for that.

Since eyebrows are being raised over your considering lions unconscious, how about the following amendment?

> An earthquake is dangerous even though it's not conscious.

I was responding to the parent who talked about real ai not sure why eyebrows are being raised unless someone want to misunderstand the context the comment were made in.

Of course a lion is conscious but it's not conscious at a level that the parent means (real ai).

> A lion is still dangerous even tough it's not conscious.

Of course, because it can wake up, right? Or are you trying to say Lions are not intelligent? If the latter I think you are wrong. I am fairly certain lions can acquire new skills and apply that knowledge in many ways. Like knowing that whoever put them down is a threat and they should probably attack them when they wake up.

I am responding to the parent who talk about "real ai" what I am saying is that you don't need "real ai" for something to be a threat. with real ai I am assuming the parent means conscious self aware AI.

No lions most certainly can't acquire new skills in any meaningful way besides trough evolution.

>No lions most certainly can't acquire new skills in any meaningful way besides trough evolution.

C. Elegans can learn new behaviors. I'm inclined to think that animals with 0 capacity for learning don't exist.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HYG65ra8Ii4/maxresdefault.jpg

Sure but in this context that's hardly relevant. We are comparing it with "real ai" as the parent calls it or GAI which is something on a much much different level.

Lions aren't that dangerous when they're unconscious. It's when they wake up that they get dangerous.

Snakes can be dangerous, ants and spiders can be. They don't need to be "woken up". Instead it's a consequence of what they are optimized for that makes them dangerous.

Lions are almost definitely conscious, since they share the overwhelming majority of their nervous-system function and structure with us.

A lion is not conscious?

Real AI will never exist. No matter what definition we have ever set up as being “real AI” we have excused it and changed it once computers actually solved it. Current AI is capable of creating “original” decision as is it capable of solving new problems “spontaneously”, yet you still will not call it AI. Not because it doesn’t live up to your defined standards, but because you want to define a set of standards that it doesn’t live up to. People get protective of the concept of intelligence and almost axiomatically define that anything a computer can do is not truely intelligent and therefore not “really” AI.

Current AI can do (very, very, very advanced) pattern recognition and mimicry. Turns out this is enough for a surprisingly large set of problems, but it isn't making "original" decisions or spontaneously solving new problems.