Yes, computerised neural networks are just very sophisticated statistical estimators. Listen to Prof. Stuart Hameroff MD on the subject on youtube: there are quantum processes in every cell (microtubules) - and this raises the number of variables to model the brain immensely. So Marvin Minsky's complexity barrier at which conciousness should magically manifest is still many orders of magintude away - if it should really happen at all just by the sole cause of complexity, which imho is mere wishful thinking.
I think the big mistake is assuming once a smart enough AI is able to execute scripts and access the web, it can be stopped easily - it can't be.
It's enough to have only one human with bad intentions to give it a goal of destroy some of humanity, and then it can get creative: make some money online, ask some people to assemble some physical things for it (like a bomb, gas, a new virus) and then smartly deliver it.
I don't think anyone is saying the current wave of AI needs to be stopped, but I'm not sure why it doesn't sound reasonable to establish some kind of alignment group to make sure control stays in our hands. Will it slow down progress: a little bit maybe. Is that worth ensuring it will be safe: definitely.
That level is not there yet by chatGPT but it will be there eventually by someone.
Interesting take. I definitely agree that there is a big game theoretic issue with AI being captured in the Law of the Jungle.
I do believe tho that he is making a mental leap there when he points out the 3 worst case scenarios and then goes on to say that there are no other 2nd and 3rd order effects we have to worry about. With technologies so influential its not what we know might happen but what we don't yet anticipate that is the issue.
To say "ah, cant do shit about it" - so lets just role it out and flip a coin seems to be a bit irresponsible. And I dont think that coordination across companies, regulators and the people is immediately authoritarian, thats a foolish argument. Regulation does not equal communism - thats absurd. Many things are regulated that should absolutely be regulated.
Also: To just say "Ah, its a tragedy of the commons" and then call it a day without looking for a solution and instead calling everyone concerned with the risk doomers - idk mate
AGI Doomers, Not AGI, Will Doom Us All
Yes, computerised neural networks are just very sophisticated statistical estimators. Listen to Prof. Stuart Hameroff MD on the subject on youtube: there are quantum processes in every cell (microtubules) - and this raises the number of variables to model the brain immensely. So Marvin Minsky's complexity barrier at which conciousness should magically manifest is still many orders of magintude away - if it should really happen at all just by the sole cause of complexity, which imho is mere wishful thinking.
So who wants to write "AGI doomerism doomerism will doom us all"?
I think the big mistake is assuming once a smart enough AI is able to execute scripts and access the web, it can be stopped easily - it can't be.
It's enough to have only one human with bad intentions to give it a goal of destroy some of humanity, and then it can get creative: make some money online, ask some people to assemble some physical things for it (like a bomb, gas, a new virus) and then smartly deliver it.
I don't think anyone is saying the current wave of AI needs to be stopped, but I'm not sure why it doesn't sound reasonable to establish some kind of alignment group to make sure control stays in our hands. Will it slow down progress: a little bit maybe. Is that worth ensuring it will be safe: definitely.
That level is not there yet by chatGPT but it will be there eventually by someone.
Hi Tom,
We want to debate this on BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze this week. Please email me if you'd like to be involved. peter.everett@bbc.co.uk
Interesting take. I definitely agree that there is a big game theoretic issue with AI being captured in the Law of the Jungle.
I do believe tho that he is making a mental leap there when he points out the 3 worst case scenarios and then goes on to say that there are no other 2nd and 3rd order effects we have to worry about. With technologies so influential its not what we know might happen but what we don't yet anticipate that is the issue.
To say "ah, cant do shit about it" - so lets just role it out and flip a coin seems to be a bit irresponsible. And I dont think that coordination across companies, regulators and the people is immediately authoritarian, thats a foolish argument. Regulation does not equal communism - thats absurd. Many things are regulated that should absolutely be regulated.
Also: To just say "Ah, its a tragedy of the commons" and then call it a day without looking for a solution and instead calling everyone concerned with the risk doomers - idk mate