#artificialintelligence
#artificialintelligence
Originally shared by Singularity 2045
Whether or not human level #artificialintelligence will be safe or dangerous, it should be clear it's logically impossible to justify a supposed AI risk via citing human treatment of animals. The #logicalfallacy of AI danger based on animal-human relationships should not be allowed to continue.
Wozniak recently cited pet dogs to justify AI fear. Tegmark cited tigers to justify AI fear. Yudkowsky in the past cited wolves. Hugo de Garis cited mosquitoes and ants. Bostrom cited gorillas.
AI #scaremongering by the aforementioned people is a joke. Their logical fallacies are via irrational, highly unintelligent, but nobody until now has exposed their fallacious reasoning concerning their animals-analogy.
After considering the following quotes, do you agree comparing human treatment of animals cannot remotely define hypothetical super-AI treatment of humans?
Wave Chronicle (23 Apirl 2015): "Analogies regarding tigers would only be valid if tigers had helped design human minds. Tigers show zero intelligent engineering of AI human brains. There is no AI design of precursor human brains by tigers. The point is our intelligent engineering of AI makes humans utterly different to any unintelligent species below us. Animals unable to create higher intelligence cannot be compared to humans creating AI."
"When pets, tigers, ants, spiders, wolves, gorillas, or any other animal can create greater intelligence than themselves, intelligence that dominates it, only then will the analogy be valid."
http://wavechronicle.com/wave/?p=5780
Originally shared by Singularity 2045
Whether or not human level #artificialintelligence will be safe or dangerous, it should be clear it's logically impossible to justify a supposed AI risk via citing human treatment of animals. The #logicalfallacy of AI danger based on animal-human relationships should not be allowed to continue.
Wozniak recently cited pet dogs to justify AI fear. Tegmark cited tigers to justify AI fear. Yudkowsky in the past cited wolves. Hugo de Garis cited mosquitoes and ants. Bostrom cited gorillas.
AI #scaremongering by the aforementioned people is a joke. Their logical fallacies are via irrational, highly unintelligent, but nobody until now has exposed their fallacious reasoning concerning their animals-analogy.
After considering the following quotes, do you agree comparing human treatment of animals cannot remotely define hypothetical super-AI treatment of humans?
Wave Chronicle (23 Apirl 2015): "Analogies regarding tigers would only be valid if tigers had helped design human minds. Tigers show zero intelligent engineering of AI human brains. There is no AI design of precursor human brains by tigers. The point is our intelligent engineering of AI makes humans utterly different to any unintelligent species below us. Animals unable to create higher intelligence cannot be compared to humans creating AI."
"When pets, tigers, ants, spiders, wolves, gorillas, or any other animal can create greater intelligence than themselves, intelligence that dominates it, only then will the analogy be valid."
http://wavechronicle.com/wave/?p=5780
More of an ad hominem than an argument.
ReplyDeleteThere are genuine concerns for AI that should be considered, and the "animal analogies" point more to the lack within an AI of the social concerns and cues that humans take for granted e.g. An AI robot chef, upon finding no food in the fridge, cooks the pet cat to ensure that the kids eat when they get home! i.e. The non-human interpretation of a particular goal may have unforeseen consequences. Most of the anticipated issues will likely present themselves in mundane, everyday actions, but could have far reaching consequences if deployed elsewhere e.g. defence
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150421-concerns-of-an-artificial-intelligence-pioneer/
Uche Eke no the article is not in any way ad hominem. The illogical of the using animals to justify AI risk is clearly explained. Can you fault the logic of how I dismiss the validity of the animals analogy?
ReplyDeleteI clearly explain how the analogy is logical fallacy. The irrationality of the analogy is clear if you look at my reasoning. Such irrationality makes me angry, thus my explanation contains anger, contempt for idiocy, but my logic stands alone perfectly robust, independently of my angry contempt.
It is an utter travesty that supposedly intelligent people have made such a gross mistake regarding logical thinking, their logical fallacy is shocking, thus I am rightly angry but my anger proves nothing and nobody should think it does prove anything. The place to focus is my reasoning.
By stating "More of an ad hominem than an argument," you add to the fallacious logic via using a red herring to hide from how the animals analogy is wholly devoid of rationality.
When you state there are "genuine concerns" you merely repeat the irrational concerns devoid of logical justification. While people may be genuinely concerned those genuine concerns are irrational, wholly without logical validity.
I could be genuinely concerned aliens will attack us in the next two hours but my genuine fear does not mean the fear is logically sound.
Illogic, such as the animals analogy, is used to justify a bogus fear. All justifications fall into the same illogical animals analogy.
I started with highlighting the illogic of the animals analogy because it is prominently used to justify the fear if AI; and it is, or it should be, an easy fallacy to expose.
So, do you to you think I have proved the comparisons in question, regarding human relations with animals translated to human relations with AI, are logically fallacious, irrational, wholly without merit, invalid?
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for thinking a robot would cook a pet cat. I am not sure where to begin with that different point, perhaps ignoratio elenchi would be a good start.