Experts who say we shouldn't worry about superintelligent AI are wrong?

Re:Experts who say we shouldn't worry about superintelligent... by hos234 on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @01:10PM (#21194476)

This is not what people are worrying about.

We are already seeing, for almost 10 years now, a whole bunch of Unintended Consequences of dumb algorithms applied at global population scales.

Just because some people are throwing the phrase superintelligence/singularity etc into the discussion, and terminology being used is inaccurate, doesn't mean we focus on correcting terminology and forget about the issues.

The article is saying too many (serious) people are doing that. And I agree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experts who say we shouldn't worry about superintelligent... by joe_the_user on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @10:09PM (#21199328)

This is not what people are worrying about. We are already seeing, for almost 10 years now, a whole bunch of Unintended Consequences of dumb algorithms applied at global population scales.

Some commentators are worrying existing AI and it's unintended consequences and some commentators are worrying about purely hypothetical superintelligence and it's hypothetical consequences. I find it remarkable there's almost not crossover between the two sorts of criticism. Real AI is probablematic because it's just correlation dressed up as intelligence and it allows organizations to get away simplistic correlation/appearance based reasoning that they otherwise wouldn't be legal/ethically allowed to engage in.

Hypothetical superintelligence worriers recycle Pascal's wage in newer and sillier forms.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experts who say we shouldn't worry about superintelligent... by jandrese on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @01:53PM (#21195000)

There are serious concerns about Big Data, but they aren't AI concerns. They are enabling people to abuse or suppress other people with great efficiency. An even better digital jackboot to put on the neck of some population.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experts who say we shouldn't worry about superintelligent... by XorNot on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @09:11PM (#21199020)

Except you're presuming there's an active human actor behind it with a deliberate intent - rather then a distributed system to which people defer responsibility because it's the path of least resistance.

Hence the issue of institutional racism in the blackbox AI systems being sold to law enforcement to determine whether to grant parole, for example. There's no review of them, but more importantly the system isn't obligated to explain itself, and no one gets themselves fired because they don't have to explain why they did what the system said to.

You assume someone has malevolent intent: whereas the reality is they just don't care and want a nuisance out of sight and out of mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experts who say we shouldn't worry about superintelligent... by Nasrudith on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @08:40AM (#21202570)

That sounds like underlying malevolence and sociopaths making excuses to try to duck responsibility which get accepted and perperuated. So very not new - forba close to modern example see the Irish potato famine and how Malthusianism was used to excuse exporting food for short term profit and leaving them to starve because "their population was unsutainable". Since someone who opens fire on a crowded highway to "reduce future traffic" is still a callous psychopath.

The solution then is accountability to those in power - for negligence. Treat the snake oil salesmen who sell racism in a box like the sociopaths who sold dowsing rod bomb detectors for both have shown a callous disregard for human life in pursuit of profit. This isn't radical - not doing it is radical and messed up.

[ Parent | on HN ]