[nuguy]

I take huge offense to this article. They claim that when it comes to AGI, Hinton and Hassabis “know what they are talking about.” Nothing could be further from the truth. These are people who have narrow expertise in one framework of AI. AGI does not yet exist so they are not experts in it, in how long it will be, or how it will work. A layman is just as qualified to speculate about AGI as these people so I find it to be infinitely frustrating when condescending journalists talk down to the concerned layman. This irritates me because AI is a death scentance for humanity — its an incredibly serious problem.

As I have stated before, AI is the end for us. To put it simply, AI brings the world into a highly unstable configuration where the only likely outcome is the relegation of humans and their way of life. This is because of the fundamental changes imposed on the economics of life by the existence of AI.

Many people say that automation leads to new jobs, not a loss of jobs. Automation has never encroached on the sacred territory of sentience. It is a totally different ball game. It is stupid to compare the automation of a traffic light to that of the brain itself. It is a new phenomenon completely and requires a new, from-the-ground-up assessment. Reaching for the cookie-cutter “automation creates new jobs” simply doesn’t cut it.

The fact of the matter is that even if most of the world is able to harness AI to benefit our current way of life, at least one country won’t. And the country that increases efficiency by displacing human input will win every encounter of every kind that it has with any other country. And the pattern of human displacement will ratchet forward uncontrollably, spreading across the whole face of the earth like a virus. And when humans are no longer necessary they will no longer exist. Not in the way they do now. It’s so important to remember that this is a watershed moment — humans have never dealt with anything like this.

AI could come about tomorrow. The core algorithm for intelligence is probably a lot simpler than is thought. The computing power needed to develop and run AI is probably much lower than it is thought to to be. Just because DNNs are not good at this does not mean that something else won’t come out of left field, either from neurological research or pure AI research.

And as I have said before, the only way to ensure that human life continues as we know it is for AI to be banned. For all research and inquires to be made illegal. Some point out that this is difficult to do but like I said, there is no other way. I implore everyone who reads this to become involved in popular efforts to address the problem of AI.

[nradov]

Stating something more times doesn't make it true. Everything you've written is pure speculation, and alarmist at that. There's no proof that AGI is even possible, and if it is possible there's no proof that it will end humanity.

[995533]

Clearly, AGI-level intelligence is possible, because human brains exist.

So unless you pose that a function has to rely on its materialization (there is something untouchably magic about biological neural networks, and intelligence is not multiple realizable), it should be possible to functionally model intelligence. Nature shows the way.

AGI will likely obsolete humanity. Either depricate it, or consume it (make us part of the Borg collective). Heck, even a relatively dumb autonomous atom bomb or computer virus may be enough to wipe humanity from the face of the earth.

[nuguy]

Even anti-alarmists don’t ask for proof that AGI is possible. Obviously it is possible. Speculation is the best you get because nobody is going to be able to prove anything. We haven’t proven global warming is caused by humans but it’s still worth it to be proactive about greenhouse gasses. This is because when something is extremely dangerous, you don’t wait around for someone to finish proving it beyond any shadow of a doubt. You probably also think that god exists because nobody can prove otherwise?

And what does alarmist even mean? Do you call global warming advocates alarmists? It’s such an annoying, nonsense word that boils down to name-calling really. Discuss the merits of my actual argument. If you think my speculation is wrong, point out a flaw in the chain of logic that leads to my conclusion. Don’t just wave your hand and say that “you can’t prove it” like some evangelical christian talking about god or global warming. Seriously infuriating when there is so much at stake.

[995533]

You are correct, in that AI experts may not be the best predictors for AGI. For one, they spend their lives working towards the goal of AGI, so it would require a huge amount of cognitive dissonance for them to say that AGI is impossible or very very far on the horizon.

Philosophers and futurists are better suited to hypothesize an AGI timeline.

But you take it too far by saying it is anyone's game.

Game theory, security, and economic competition makes it impossible to globally ban AI. The incentives to automate the economy (compare AI revolution with industrial revolution) and to weaponize AI (Manhattan Project for intelligence) are just too big. We are already seeing that the US focus on fair and ethical AI puts them at a disadvantage against China and Russia. AGI must require pervasive surveillance of the populace, but the Luddites are holding this back.

I suggest you learn to stop worrying about the bomb, and start planning for its arrival.

[AgentME]

There are non-doomsday possibilities for AGI. Imagine a super-intelligent AI that was built from the start to value humanity and our way of life, and from there it chooses to protect us and enable us all to do what we want more. (Of course, this could go in dystopian directions, but even those are better than extinction.) A super-intelligent AI that is built to value humans could decide to "uplift" humans' intelligence to be able to keep up with it in places that humans desire to keep up with it.

If we can figure out decision theory and how our values work, then when we figure out AI, we can hopefully build it to be aligned with our values from the start, instead of blindly hoping it happens to play nice with us instead of brushing us off like ants.

[nuguy]

You don’t even begin to comprehend what I’m saying. You need to think about this more deeply.

So what if it is possible to create a benevolent ai? Nobody said this isn’t possible or even likely. We can also invent a machine that scrubs all the moss off of stones. Just because it’s possible for it to exist doesn’t mean it’s going to proliferate in the free-market of the world and everything in it. The only thing that is important is the fact that

1: we will enter an unstable configuration where any AI implementation that can exist will exist

2: the AI implementations that proliferate will be those that are not hamstrung by being forced to include humans in the loop

3: humans will be out of the loop for every conceivable task and therefore not enjoy the high standard of living that they do in 2018

[jeremyjh]

> the only way to ensure that human life continues as we know it is for AI to be banned

Is that because you think banned things do not happen? Even if the thing that is banned could confer a massive advantage to the entities developing it?

I think AGI is unlikely to be a thing in my lifetime, or even my children's. But if I were worried about it, I'd probably focus on developing a strategy to create a benevolent intelligence FIRST, rather than try to prevent everyone else from ever creating one via agreements and laws.

[nuguy]

I appreciate that you actually suggest a solution. Nobody knows when AGI will come but it could come tomorrow. It could come in 1000 years. No harm in being proactive.

Developing a good ai first is useless because as I have said, the creation of ai enters us into an unstable configuration where bad ai will crop up regardless. Keeping bad ai from existing is infinitely easier when ai does not exist as a technology as opposed to when it’s a turnkey thing.

[sophistication]

AI is likely simple and won't require much processing power after all, so it will be impossible to ban it because it would imply more regulation and surveillance than what would be sustainable. Also global warming will likely kill us anyhow. The rational conclusion is to enjoy our supermarkets and warm showers as long as they last. They will probably last longer if we deny these threats so as to avoid causing mass panic and nihilism.

[nuguy]

We can survive global warming. We can fix it. We can come back from it. We will never come back from ai. It’s not impossible to ban ai. And we would be stupid to assume it’s impossible instead of trying to find out through an effort to save ourselves.

[alexnewman]

"These are people who have narrow expertise in one framework of AI." Proof that you don't know who you are insulting

[nuguy]

I don’t remember insulting anyone. And how is that not true?

[p1esk]

* AI to be banned*

Good luck with that.

[nuguy]

So sarcasm is what will save us all?