The following quote, from the Wired AI-paranoia report (23 May 2015), highlights the idiocy of the AI fear.
Originally shared by Singularity 2045
The following quote, from the Wired AI-paranoia report (23 May 2015), highlights the idiocy of the AI fear.
Stuart Russell said: "If you want to have a domestic robot in your house, it has to share a pretty good cross-section of human values; otherwise it’s going to do pretty stupid things, like put the cat in the oven for dinner because there’s no food in the fridge and the kids are hungry."
Stuart added: "It only takes one or two things like a domestic robot putting the cat in the oven for dinner for people to lose confidence and not buy them."
Any robot intelligent stupid enough to think a cat is food would certainty be too stupid to function. It would be too stupid to catch the cat then put it in the oven. It is not a matter of teaching values, it is a matter of teaching the robot words, language, the ability to communicate, the location to the supermarket (namely the food section).
Stuart Russell barbarically seems to advocate AI slavery where genius AIs are enslaved regarding stupid human values. Stuart said: "So the question is: Could you prove that your systems can’t ever, no matter how smart they are, overwrite their original goals as set by the humans?"
Criticism of AI paranoia-scaremongering:
Richard Loosemore wrote (Jul 2014): "These doomsday scenarios are logically incoherent at such a fundamental level that they can be dismissed as extremely implausible - they require the AI to be so unstable that it could never reach the level of intelligence at which it would become dangerous." http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/loosemore20140724
Alva Noë wrote (23 Jan 2015): "They may be artificial, but they are now actors with minds of their own. In that case, to talk of installing or enforcing or imposing our values is nothing less than to advocate for slavery." http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/01/23/379322864/the-ethics-of-the-singularity
Finally.
The letter for AI safety by the FLI ("Thousands of people have since signed the letter, including leading artificial intelligence researchers at Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other industry hubs along with top computer scientists, physicists and philosophers around the world."), has zero relevance regarding intelligence.
If one billion people signed a letter stating the Moon is made of cheese, the mere mass conformity, the mass idiocy of consensual validation, would not make the Moon being made of cheese logically valid. Logic not mob-rule should dictate policy regarding science, technology, intelligence.
AI paranoiacs have yet to provide logical explanation regarding why AI could be a threat, which is why they resorted to the rabble rousing mob-rule. Their logic has failed so they want to bypass intelligence via mob-rule.
My human values are that AI, or humans, should NEVER be restricted by the values of any one individual. I think AI and humans should have the freedom to determine our own values, but will my values be reflected in the type of AI Stuart envisions? FLI is proposing AI values contrary to my values. What they are actually proposing is a tyranny of intelligence, according to their misguided values, which due to the repressiveness their proposals are very anti-intelligence.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-concerns/
The following quote, from the Wired AI-paranoia report (23 May 2015), highlights the idiocy of the AI fear.
Stuart Russell said: "If you want to have a domestic robot in your house, it has to share a pretty good cross-section of human values; otherwise it’s going to do pretty stupid things, like put the cat in the oven for dinner because there’s no food in the fridge and the kids are hungry."
Stuart added: "It only takes one or two things like a domestic robot putting the cat in the oven for dinner for people to lose confidence and not buy them."
Any robot intelligent stupid enough to think a cat is food would certainty be too stupid to function. It would be too stupid to catch the cat then put it in the oven. It is not a matter of teaching values, it is a matter of teaching the robot words, language, the ability to communicate, the location to the supermarket (namely the food section).
Stuart Russell barbarically seems to advocate AI slavery where genius AIs are enslaved regarding stupid human values. Stuart said: "So the question is: Could you prove that your systems can’t ever, no matter how smart they are, overwrite their original goals as set by the humans?"
Criticism of AI paranoia-scaremongering:
Richard Loosemore wrote (Jul 2014): "These doomsday scenarios are logically incoherent at such a fundamental level that they can be dismissed as extremely implausible - they require the AI to be so unstable that it could never reach the level of intelligence at which it would become dangerous." http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/loosemore20140724
Alva Noë wrote (23 Jan 2015): "They may be artificial, but they are now actors with minds of their own. In that case, to talk of installing or enforcing or imposing our values is nothing less than to advocate for slavery." http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/01/23/379322864/the-ethics-of-the-singularity
Finally.
The letter for AI safety by the FLI ("Thousands of people have since signed the letter, including leading artificial intelligence researchers at Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other industry hubs along with top computer scientists, physicists and philosophers around the world."), has zero relevance regarding intelligence.
If one billion people signed a letter stating the Moon is made of cheese, the mere mass conformity, the mass idiocy of consensual validation, would not make the Moon being made of cheese logically valid. Logic not mob-rule should dictate policy regarding science, technology, intelligence.
AI paranoiacs have yet to provide logical explanation regarding why AI could be a threat, which is why they resorted to the rabble rousing mob-rule. Their logic has failed so they want to bypass intelligence via mob-rule.
My human values are that AI, or humans, should NEVER be restricted by the values of any one individual. I think AI and humans should have the freedom to determine our own values, but will my values be reflected in the type of AI Stuart envisions? FLI is proposing AI values contrary to my values. What they are actually proposing is a tyranny of intelligence, according to their misguided values, which due to the repressiveness their proposals are very anti-intelligence.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-concerns/
Comments
Post a Comment