Current Affairs Robotics and AI....

[Bedfordblue]

I imagine a lot of car companies would be seriously concerned about the prospect of litigation (in the event of collisions/accidents etc.) to the point that we won’t see driverless cars becoming common place until the technology is near faultless.

Until then it will probably be the plaything of the very rich.

Think until most cars have the capability to communicate to each other we won’t really see it. Once they’ve all got some form of NFC to alert each other what they are doing rather than rely on sensors to see / sense what happening around them, think then there will be a step change in autonomous driving

 

[Rita_Poon]

The printing press or the atom bomb...

Sam Altman testifies before Congress saying there is ‘urgent’ need for regulation

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addresses ‘urgent’ need for AI rules to avert disaster

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DualityNSNO]

The printing press or the atom bomb...

Yeah mate well said absolutely.


???

 

[PKwalnuts]

We are going to get to a point where our initial reactions to AI not being capable enough compared to human intelligence, changes.

I expect in my lifetime, we will get to a point where we will look AI over human to do a task, because humans are no longer more capable and are more prone to error and stupidity.

It is possible we will become as dependent on AI as we all have become with the Internet and wireless comms, social networking and real-time content.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

We are going to get to a point where our initial reactions to AI not being capable enough compared to human intelligence, changes.

I expect in my lifetime, we will get to a point where we will look AI over human to do a task, because humans are no longer more capable and are more prone to error and stupidity.

It is possible we will become as dependent on AI as we all have become with the Internet and wireless comms, social networking and real-time content.

How will the AI view us in this scenario is a concerning question.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

How will the AI view us in this scenario is a concerning question.

AI doesn't think for itself.

 

[Martin Alvito]

AI doesn't think for itself.

Then it's not a true, sentient AI. ChatGPT fails a thorough Turing test, by making mistakes humans don't make in predictable fashion. Stockfish and other top chess programs destroy human grandmasters, but they can't carry on a verbal conversation. They're all merely sophisticated computer programs that remain within the boundaries defined by their programmers.

Yeah mate well said absolutely.


???

Think about it this way. The printing press enabled the Protestant/Catholic schism by putting a Bible in everyone's hands. The atomic bomb made it possible for humanity to eradicate itself for the first time.

We're looking at both issues here - a potential bursting of the dam when it comes to ideas, and a probable existential threat. I don't think he's overstating his case.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Then it's not a true, sentient AI. ChatGPT fails a thorough Turing test, by making mistakes humans don't make in predictable fashion. Stockfish and other top chess programs destroy human grandmasters, but they can't carry on a verbal conversation. They're all merely sophisticated computer programs that remain within the boundaries defined by their programmers.


Think about it this way. The printing press enabled the Protestant/Catholic schism by putting a Bible in everyone's hands. The atomic bomb made it possible for humanity to eradicate itself for the first time.

We're looking at both issues here - a potential bursting of the dam when it comes to ideas, and a probable existential threat. I don't think he's overstating his case.

The biggest risk is that only a few major corporations have the grunt to run these kinds of systems, but of course, those boosting up the power of these systems won't ever talk about "those" risks because they profit from it.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The biggest risk is that only a few major corporations have the grunt to run these kinds of systems, but of course, those boosting up the power of these systems won't ever talk about "those" risks because they profit from it.

Sure, those systems are natural monopolies and they expect to recover their investment. How to keep the corporations from bleeding us dry is a question for economists in the field of mechanism design.

Sooner or later, though, someone will unleash something else. Very smart people have been telling us that for a hundred years, now. It may be intentional, or it may be by accident. The point of regulating that process is to prevent catastrophic outcomes like Skynet, or The Matrix. I would much rather deal with something bound by Asimov's Three Laws, if at all possible.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Transcript of Professor Hawking’s speech at the launch of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, October 19, 2016

“It is a great pleasure to be here today to open this new Centre. We spend a great deal of time studying history, which, let’s face it, is mostly the history of stupidity. So it is a welcome change that people are studying instead the future of intelligence.

Intelligence is central to what it means to be human. Everything that our civilisation has achieved, is a product of human intelligence, from learning to master fire, to learning to grow food, to understanding the cosmos.

I believe there is no deep difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain and what can be achieved by a computer. It therefore follows that computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence — and exceed it.

Artificial intelligence research is now progressing rapidly. Recent landmarks such as self-driving cars, or a computer winning at the game of Go, are signs of what is to come. Enormous levels of investment are pouring into this technology. The achievements we have seen so far will surely pale against what the coming decades will bring.

The potential benefits of creating intelligence are huge. We cannot predict what we might achieve, when our own minds are amplified by AI. Perhaps with the tools of this new technological revolution, we will be able to undo some of the damage done to the natural world by the last one — industrialisation. And surely we will aim to finally eradicate disease and poverty. Every aspect of our lives will be transformed. In short, success in creating AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilisation.

But it could also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. Alongside the benefits, AI will also bring dangers, like powerful autonomous weapons, or new ways for the few to oppress the many. It will bring great disruption to our economy. And in the future, AI could develop a will of its own — a will that is in conflict with ours.

In short, the rise of powerful AI will be either the best, or the worst thing, ever to happen to humanity. We do not yet know which. That is why in 2014, I and a few others called for more research to be done in this area. I am very glad that someone was listening to me!

The research done by this centre is crucial to the future of our civilisation and of our species. I wish you the best of luck!”

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory* A. M. TURING

https://rauterberg.employee.id.tue.nl/lecturenotes/DDM110%20CAS/Turing/Turing-1951%20Intelligent%20Machinery-a%20Heretical%20Theory.pdf

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Amazon product ASIN 0312622376

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Transcript of Professor Hawking’s speech at the launch of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, October 19, 2016

“It is a great pleasure to be here today to open this new Centre. We spend a great deal of time studying history, which, let’s face it, is mostly the history of stupidity. So it is a welcome change that people are studying instead the future of intelligence.

Intelligence is central to what it means to be human. Everything that our civilisation has achieved, is a product of human intelligence, from learning to master fire, to learning to grow food, to understanding the cosmos.

I believe there is no deep difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain and what can be achieved by a computer. It therefore follows that computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence — and exceed it.

Artificial intelligence research is now progressing rapidly. Recent landmarks such as self-driving cars, or a computer winning at the game of Go, are signs of what is to come. Enormous levels of investment are pouring into this technology. The achievements we have seen so far will surely pale against what the coming decades will bring.

The potential benefits of creating intelligence are huge. We cannot predict what we might achieve, when our own minds are amplified by AI. Perhaps with the tools of this new technological revolution, we will be able to undo some of the damage done to the natural world by the last one — industrialisation. And surely we will aim to finally eradicate disease and poverty. Every aspect of our lives will be transformed. In short, success in creating AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilisation.

But it could also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. Alongside the benefits, AI will also bring dangers, like powerful autonomous weapons, or new ways for the few to oppress the many. It will bring great disruption to our economy. And in the future, AI could develop a will of its own — a will that is in conflict with ours.

In short, the rise of powerful AI will be either the best, or the worst thing, ever to happen to humanity. We do not yet know which. That is why in 2014, I and a few others called for more research to be done in this area. I am very glad that someone was listening to me!

The research done by this centre is crucial to the future of our civilisation and of our species. I wish you the best of luck!”

There has been talk of that for donkey's years. Artificial general intelligence is as much a pipe dream as fusion power.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Sure, those systems are natural monopolies and they expect to recover their investment. How to keep the corporations from bleeding us dry is a question for economists in the field of mechanism design.

Sooner or later, though, someone will unleash something else. Very smart people have been telling us that for a hundred years, now. It may be intentional, or it may be by accident. The point of regulating that process is to prevent catastrophic outcomes like Skynet, or The Matrix. I would much rather deal with something bound by Asimov's Three Laws, if at all possible.

Outlandish predictions do have a long and storied history, but that same history shows us that change tends to be far more incremental in nature. I don't see anything that changes that perspective in terms of generative AI. At the moment it's just a lot of people losing their [Poor language removed] over the hype.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Outlandish predictions do have a long and storied history, but that same history shows us that change tends to be far more incremental in nature. I don't see anything that changes that perspective in terms of generative AI. At the moment it's just a lot of people losing their [Poor language removed] over the hype.

I'm not one to argue with Asimov's predictive track record. It won't happen next week, and probably not next year, but it will happen sooner or later. Sure, he wrote about miniaturization and time travel as well, but his essays show that he knew better on those items.

Nobody was thinking about an atomic bomb in 1933. No one except Szilard was even much considering the possibility of a chain reaction. Rutherford himself would have told you the chain reaction concept was nonsense, and did so in public.

If people inside the industry are saying, "Help!" I am inclined to believe them. It might even be possible to get something done, as this one cuts across party lines.