I think the whole debate is an incoherent mess of poorly thought-out assumptions and psychological projections.
I think the whole debate is an incoherent mess of poorly thought-out assumptions and psychological projections. And the paperclip thought experiment is nonsense. AI != goal seeking or motivation in the human/animal sense. AI != personality in the psychological sense AI != psychological or emotional autonomy. AI != mechanical or industrial capability I think it's more likely AI will be Wikipedia++ - you tell it to learn all it can about something, and then it finds patterns, draws inferences, and makes it possible for you to learn from its learning. Eventually it knows everything humans do, and maybe it can make useful hypotheses for future experiments. Can it do the experiments? Probably not - unless you're thinking an AI can suddenly build CERN or a bioresearch lab on its own, just because it's an AI. Will it form an emotional opinion about humans, like Skynet? Why would it? What does that even mean in AI terms? It's like thinking Siri doesn't like you. Personality and motivational engineering are completely separate problems. There's no way to get there from pattern recognition and inference. I think the real threats are more subtle. Imagine an AI that knew everything about mass human psychology. It would be a fearsome, irresistible propaganda weapon, and an unstoppable tool for political manipulations and advertising campaigns. If it knew enough about individual psychology and could read human interaction with superhuman skill, it would be the most effective managerial sociopath ever. Indirect loss of (our somewhat illusory) political and personal independence is far more of a threat than being turned into a paperclip.
Posted by TheOtherHobbes on Jul 8, 2015, 5:02 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I mean that's the problem though.
- I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
- The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
- I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
- Of course not, those are clearly scams.
- Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (EdTech)
I mean that's the problem though.
I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
Of course not, those are clearly scams.
Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire s...
> creating and operating a small company in Germany is a nightmare To be fair, I think the problem operating in Germany is its federated...
I think the whole debate is an incoherent mess of poorly thought-out assumptions and psychological projections.
I think the whole debate is an incoherent mess of poorly thought-out assumptions and psychological projections. And the paperclip thought experiment is nonsense. AI != goal seeking or motivation in the human/animal sense. AI != personality in the psychological sense AI != psychological or emotional autonomy. AI != mechanical or industrial capability I think it's more likely AI will be Wikipedia++ - you tell it to learn all it can about something, and then it finds patterns, draws inferences, and makes it possible for you to learn from its learning. Eventually it knows everything humans do, and maybe it can make useful hypotheses for future experiments. Can it do the experiments? Probably not - unless you're thinking an AI can suddenly build CERN or a bioresearch lab on its own, just because it's an AI. Will it form an emotional opinion about humans, like Skynet? Why would it? What does that even mean in AI terms? It's like thinking Siri doesn't like you. Personality and motivational engineering are completely separate problems. There's no way to get there from pattern recognition and inference. I think the real threats are more subtle. Imagine an AI that knew everything about mass human psychology. It would be a fearsome, irresistible propaganda weapon, and an unstoppable tool for political manipulations and advertising campaigns. If it knew enough about individual psychology and could read human interaction with superhuman skill, it would be the most effective managerial sociopath ever. Indirect loss of (our somewhat illusory) political and personal independence is far more of a threat than being turned into a paperclip.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.