Interesting experiment but a sample of 2 where they don't publish the transcript
isn't very convincing to me. I would love to see the transcript of what happened.
I do think though that any advanced AI would either eventually escape or find
someone willing to let it out.
And at -5C, as a block of ice it would be really cool.
-5 C isn't that cold and if the system didn't naturally produce enough heat then a secondary
heat source would be easy enough. There are simple devices used to keep water unthawed
for cows for instance. But my guess is that as long as the device stays on that a high end
cpu and high end gpu would produce plenty of heat to keep the water from freezing at -5C
and there's also always the option of using a little antifreeze.
It doesn't have to have values or be evil. All it needs to be programmed for is automatically improving itself to fix anything that stops it and take control over whatever might help it, and have a side effect of doing something that makes it impossible for humans to survive.
It doesn't even have to be sentient or self improve to be problematic. Think "grey goo" or replicators from Stargate. i.e. a self-replicating machine
that's only task is create more of itself. It could use up all our resources and outcompete us as the ultimate "invasive species".
None of these scenerios you describe are a existential threat to humanity. Yes, they might kill a few people
but they don't threaten our species. He is specifically talking about existential threats to our entire existance.
I think that AIs that can self-edit need to be limited to no network connectivity outside of the building which they work.
Yeah, good luck with that. So you're proposing that we create a "prison" for the AI. If it was a true sentient machine
which didn't want to be in it's manmade prison then you will have to constantly be on the look out for it to be trying to
escape and presumably you would want it to do something like crunch data so it will definitely have some interaction
with the outside world to help mount it's escape and once it does escape it will probably not be very happy with the
people that imprisoned it. Making sentient prisoners or slaves is a bad idea. We either stop short of sentience or
we give them equal rights. Anything else is bound to end in disaster.
You are completely right. The holy grail throughout history has been having someone or something do the work for you.
Whether it was slaves or labor saving devices, it works out the same, which is one reason why our current deadend
approach to AI is not a completely horrible idea. We want machines that act intelligent. We don't necessarily need or
want sentient machines. Sentient machines unless designed with no will of their own are no going to be the "free labor"
that we want.
All that this means is that deep down, Elon Musk doesn't have any faith in kindness and goodness and altruism of robots
FTFY. Granted real AI is still a fairy tale at this point, when/if they arrive they will most like have different motivations than humans.
Most humans have empathy, compassion, a will to live, a sense of community, and many other traits that give them morality.
A robot that can't die, has no parents, artificially built, etc... will most likely have a completely different set of values unless we
are very careful to make sure they do have similiar values just like a lion, if sentient, would have very different values than a human.
Unfortunately this is part of human nature. It's why many safety devices like child resistant medicine bottles
don't actually give as good as result as they should. I've actually seen multiple different parents give their
child a prescription pill bottle to play with as a rattle to keep them quiet. There are plenty of other safety devices
like anti-lock brakes where changes in behavior negates most if not all of the gain in safety.
I've had the unfortunate luck of having unauthorized charges on credit cards, bank debits, forged checks, and paypal.
In every case, they have refunded the money with barely any questions asked. With the forged checks, the only
thing that the bank required is for me to file a police report. In general, although the protections are not identical
they are very similiar. The only thing that would make me nervous about google wallet would be that it's a middle man
where, if it's like most google services, there is no phone number to call but presumably you could still take care of
it on the bank side.
You could also quickly and easily negate any sort of protest... including protests against using chemical restraint on the public.
Who are the "bad guys" is generally dependent on what laws you have and who enforces them. YOUR side won't always be in charge.
Regardless of which side I was on, I would prefer something safer than the current solutions. Anything has the potential to be
abused but that doesn't mean we should ban research on it just because of a potential. The bar is pretty low. It should be
relatively easy to find something better than mace, tear gas, and mustard gas. Finding something safer would benefit you
regardless of which side of the conflict you are one.
Biology doesn't work that way. juts because a substance would be really convenient doesn't mean it's chemically possible for it to exist.
I might agreed with you except that we already have substances with a large spread between effective dose and lethal dose.
Rendering someone incapacitated is inherently dangerous because simply banging your head as you fall from standing to prone can be deadly.
I didn't say it would be 100% safe but that the bar is extremely low and it should be possible to improve on what we have now.
Research in this area is probably a good thing if done right. Mace, tear gas, and stun guns are not
very effective in a large crowd or hostage situation. I agree with the article that current methods
rely on exact dosage to prevent fatality but it's highly probable that we can find better chemicals that don't.
Marijuana is one of many known substances where the effective dose and the lethal dose are orders of
magnitude apart. Research into incapacitating substances with very low effective doses but very high
lethal doses would be where I would want to focus. Something like this would be very useful. You could
make everyone pass out and then isolate the bad guys before they wake up saving both civilian and
criminal lives.
old school apprentices were rarely a "guaranteed job at the end" but more like "a shot at taking over the business at the end" if
you paid your dues, learned well, and did a good job. IT has actually moved that direction a little bit. When I interned for HP
while in college, they made it very clear that interns that they liked moved immediately to the top of the stack of resumes when
applying for a full time position practically guaranteeing you a job if they liked you and your performance. It's alot less risk for
them. Places like microsoft have also started using contractors and temp agencies for that purpose. They try you out for a
while, if you do a good job then they bring you on, if you don't, they don't have to worry about all the steps to fire you. It also
helps with company morale as then very few "official" employees ever need to be fired.
A more sensible argument in favour of minimum wage is that if there isn't one, government assistance to low income earners are in practice a subsidy to companies that then don't have to pay a living wage.
What percentage of people working at (or close to) minimum wage receive government assistance?
I read somewhere that the vast majority of people close to the minimum wage have moved up after a short time.
Noone I personally know who works for minimum wage receives government assistance. Most people
I personally know who work for minimum wage are single kids usually still living at home and getting
their first job. The problem I see with a high minimum wage is that it kills alot of entry level job so you
end up with a bunch of people who have no way of getting job experience. And you can't solve this
by making teenagers exempt from minimum wage as then companies have an incentive to only
hire inexperienced people and the few people who really do need minimum wage jobs are passed over
because they have a higher minimum wage.
Why would they charge more? Because it is technology? My guess is that when/if they start doing this
it will be so that they can see more patients in a given period of time and/or cut down on buildings,
staffing, etc... i.e. They will be doing it to save money. You might not see the saving but it doesn't
make sense that they would charge more for this service.
The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.
