Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

quax writes Steve Wozniak maintained for a long time that true AI is relegated to the realm of science fiction. But recent advances in quantum computing have him reconsidering his stance. Just like Elon Musk, he is now worried about what this development will mean for humanity. Will this kind of fear actually engender the dangers that these titans of industry fear? Will Steve Wozniak draw the same conclusion and invest in quantum comuting to keep an eye on the development? One of the bloggers in the field thinks that would be a logical step to take. If you can't beat'em, and the quantum AI is coming, you should at least try to steer the outcome. Woz actually seems more ambivalent than afraid, though: in the interview linked, he says "I hope [AI-enabling quantum computing] does come, and we should pursue it because it is about scientific exploring." "But in the end we just may have created the species that is above us."

Quantum Computing Required?

[tmosley]

I don't understand the train of thought that leads to the notion that quantum computing is a prerequisite for strong AI, unless there has been some research that has shown that the human brain is a quantum computer. No, it seems to me that we have all the tools we need already, and now it is just a matter of Moore's Law progressing until we can build a neural net that is as powerful as a human brain. Well, that and a leap in design that allows long term planning, like the change that happened when man ceased to be a dumb beast and became what he is today.

AI isn't taking over

[gregor-e]

All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we're redesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mind becomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans will upgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will also submit that if the AGI we create is truly "above" us, then it will not be a heartless monster that destroys whatever it finds troublesome. Just as we care for our parents even (and especially) once they are both physically and mentally "beneath" us, so too will our AGI children take care of us.

Or, perhaps more generally, just as we set up wildlife preserves and such to ensure that our evolutionary ancestors can continue to thrive in an environment that is natural to them, so too will our AGI overlords set up wildlife preserves for us.

And, in both cases, the AGIs will do an even better job of it than we do, since they are superior after all.

I fully expect that the singularity will be awesome!

Re:AI isn't taking over

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be able to make a computerized copy of me, and that copy could be perfect in every way, but it still isn't me, even if the process of making that copy destroyed the original. That's not migration, it's replacement. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, necessarily, but let's call it what it is.

Re:Agreed.

[tmosley]

Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing an AGI. Why would you think that a random AI created without safety standards would be like a human child, loving and caring for its parents, rather than a spider child, mercilessly devouring its parents for their chemical energy?

"The AI does not love you, nor does it hate you. You are simply made out of atoms that it can put to better use."

Re:OMFG

[jythie]

Well, long term, it is a problem to be solved. Each leap forward has generally resulted in more medium income jobs being replaced by low income ones than high income ones. Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. This might not initially sound like a problem if one pictures himself being on the winning side of the shift, but the bottom can only get knocked so far out before you run into problems with insufficient consumer demand or outright civil unrest.

Re:OMFG

[ShanghaiBill]

Either you're rich or you're dirt poor.

There is no sensible reason to believe that. Robotics and AI will replace people because they produce goods and services much more cheaply and abundantly. So there should be plenty for everyone, and it will be easier than ever for "the rich" to buy off the poor in order to keep social order. In America, households in the bottom quintile already get 40% of their income through government transfer payments, and that percentage has been rising. Inequality may rise, but nearly everyone will still be better off than today in absolute terms.

There is also no reason to believe that "the rich" will control all the production. People once predicted that only "the rich" would have cars, TVs, and computers, and that these technologies would result in envy and social stratification. Today, 4 billion people carry a vectorizing supercomputer in their pocket. In fact, the production of goods and services should be more distributed, since you will no longer need a big factory or as much expertise.

Re:OMFG

[ShanghaiBill]

Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

This is hogwash. The current wave of technological innovation has lifted billions out of poverty, and helped people at the bottom the most. Incomes for the 1.4 billion people in China have octupled in one generation. Southeast Asia is very doing well. Even Africa is growing solidly, driven by ubiquitous cellphones and better communication. Poor people in America and Europe are not doing so well, but they are not poor by world standards, they are actually relatively rich.