followed tags: 0
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 15 days
I think I understand. I really think that it's not what you claim; that I did everything I could to be reasonable and fair, and not be like a parent to a child, a important scholar to a hapless student, but just equal to equal -- as a re-reading of the actual content will show -- but let's see what the next posting brings.
You know it's quite hilarious -- my facebook friends (and I only have a few hundred, my actual friends) include Oren Etzioni and Ben Goertzal and Roman Yampolskiy and Toby Walsh and Sebastian Thrun and Rob Enderle and many others -- it's you who have your heads on backwards. I humbly suggest you rethink your position -- it's really not going to work any more.
Ok, I'm really trying to understand... What in the last message was patronizing? I really want to know, I'm not pretending.
Hahaha... I understand; it takes awhile to really understand so don't worry. And BTW Bostrom is talking about control, not actually really sticking to a paperclip maximizer... You know I actually majored in Philosophy and Math at Berkeley, although Math was always my specialty. I was quite good :-)
Yes, that's it, of course. LinkedIn (peter marshall irvine) is the other one that's pretty explanatory. BTW facebook is one also -- facebook. com /memememobile?v=feed. Friend me, with hubski as your message.
Listen, so far there are three people, including Isherwood who at least tried to listen. I know eventually he'll come around -- it takes lot's of time, don't worry, even though right now you're unconvinced. But how about a few more speakers, even nay-sayers, so I can get an idea whether this is a very small operation, or there's lots of listeners just taking notes. I want to listen, not just talk -- this is supposed to be a dialogue.
That's precisely it -- it really is fundamentally different, and when you truly grok that about AI and AGI, you'll be the same as me; horrified beyond belief.
It's funny, because I used to be exactly like you, skepical of off-the-wall theories, and very confident we could do something, even if it would not be known right now. But about 8 years ago I realized that AI was totally different, a whole new threat, and this time it was terribly real, like nothing that has ever been seen before, ever. This was a fundamental advance, and it WILL be incredibly beneficial and useful without a doubt, but the downside is equally horrific -- literally the end of this world in our lifetime. I reasearched it for many years before I came to this conclusion -- it was not a half-assed remark or sassy conclusion by any means, and I really feel like you better research it too, more closely.
The programmers lazy arm in ISIS, typing out instructions for the end of this world. It's 100000 times different and easier than a soldiers iron specification, and it will be the death of us. There IS NO SOLUTION -- so we have to think differently, and maybe -- maybe -- we can come up with something meaningful.
Well I have answered it a couple of times too :-) but lets try again with a fresh take.
First off, that precisely my point about a couple of soldiers in Utah or Nebraska firing off nuclear weapons. They are very specialized soldiers, with very special training, at the time, and it takes two of them to do it AT THE SAME TIME, and a host of protections to back it up. But one programmer from ISIS can do it immediately, and there are literally infinitely more programmers who can do it in a heartbeat than highly specialized, trained soldiers with specialized equipment to back them up -- that's the entire point!
It's really important that a programmers shady arm from around the world (there is no concept of place in this internet-world) that can do the things that used to be specialized soldiers prerogative. And the defense will be no use at all, because soon, there will more than just one little programmer, but an 10,000-strong army, that can wipe the floor with any army for the first quarter hour, which is all it will take to take us back to the stone age. That's one of the many things I'm afraid of now -- it's not like it was when it was one big army against another -- that could be handled. This cannot.
(The note on reddit . com, just now): I am -- because of military AI and it's utterly devastating arms race, which will have to conclude with our destruction, although otherwise I would just say that humans and robots would live together in harmony. But I should have made that clearer -- my mistake.
No, to answer your questions, AI is wiser than us (generally, not in particular cases, unfortunately). It's really ANI for the military case, not AGI, but that does not mean it can kill us very effectively. It can and it will. Because all it takes is a programmers wrist (I should have made that clearer too), which is very, very plentiful, including our direst enemies, like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and future terrorists of all stripes.
Ok, lets say I'm wrong and it IS condescending in some way. I really don't think so -- I think it is exactly the way that I would want to be talked to myself. It's just saying what we really mean: it's uplifting actually. But nonetheless, perhaps I'm wrong anyway -- disregard that for now, because I really just want to talk with you as equals. We're all friends here -- alright? And I do have some experience -- I have been CEO or CTO for a long time, including for several years as CEO consulting on AI, robotics, and nanotechnology topics, and previously CEO for 8 happy years at a personalized voice recognition company, where I had customers including Costco, Lowes, Crate & Barrel, Buy.com, and several others, and where we were bought for a lot more than $3 million which I have personally raised myself.
So lets just say that I am sorry if I got you off on the wrong foot -- I'm truly sorry -- but aside from that... Nonetheless, clearly Elon Musk and Stuart Russell (professor of AI at CAL) agree with me. Bill Joy and Bill Gates and Steven Hawking and Steve Wozniak agree with me too, some of the greatest minds that exist today -- and lots of them were superb programmers in their day, absolutely world-class. And many others -- this is not a new argument. Unless we get together and change things drastically, which is very unlikely to happen unless WE personally do it, we're set to go back to the literal stone age pretty quickly, within 20-30 years, because of the military AI arms race, which is unlike anything you have seen before -- programmers wrist, 20 million individuals, rather than top-secret nuclear arms, which a truly tiny percentage of people have. Do you think I am wrong?
I honestly do not know what you're talking about. We maybe have a difference of view, or maybe we agree. Either way is fine with me, but if there is a difference in your personal case, please explain it, and I (and other people) will reason it out together. It's not "condescending" at all -- in fact the opposite.
Yes. In particular:
"... if you value your very existence (without being ironic -- please), you will start thinking about it much more seriously. It's the greatest existential threat ever, period. It's up to you, each individual one of you, to think how it could be altered right now, before it's here... ".