Whether AGI is "tragically underfunded" or "luckily underfunded" is a matter of perspective. If the DoD announced a Manhattan-scale project to create an AI for defense, I'd be more worried than I am now. At the current levels of funding, smaller groups have at least some chance of making progress on safety research. It's also encouraging that Google is taking the problem somewhat seriously, and has instituted an "AI ethics" committee as part of the DeepMind acquisition.
Re:What you wanted to know about AI
by AndrewKemendo on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:53PM
(#9213923)
Definitely agreed, except for the DoD Manhattan project part - I would love to see that.
I mean that is what I think, and most of the community thinks, but we haven't proven that empirically - nor could we, its unprovable.
But you don't have any good arguments for feeling safe.
Correct. Notice that I am not saying that we are safe. I personally think we aren't safe [1], but that is a different discussion which is equally as baseless.
The key here is that the argument that AGI will not be safe, and therefore needs to be regulated to make it safe, not only misses the point but ensures that we would never make one. The current level of funding for AGI development and understanding of the roadmap for AGI is absolutely dismal given it's potential impact. If we now add the constraint that in order to make one, we also ensure it doesn't threaten humanity - then you have sounded the death knell for AGI. Once we make AGI - in the sense that it is a recursively self improving system with human equivalent capabilities across domains - there is no way we will know what will happen. That's it.
[1] Which is why I am personally in the transhumanist camp.