But I am sure we can make safe AI ... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/computer-flaws.html … https://fb.me/5gC7KlOdg
-
-
Replying to @romanyam
Nobody who deeply thought about it seems to have any confidence that we can make safe AI, but most agree that we cannot avoid making AI, and we should try to make it safe against all odds
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
There is mo such thing in life as "safe". There is only an attempt to create situations where there are as many diverse options that improve life as possible. So, when one fails us, we have other paths available.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thewiseturtle @romanyam
Turil, safe AI is about existential risk, not diversity of outcome. The attempt to build strong AI is a bit like trying to make a new type of nuclear power plant that has an unknown probability of blowing up the whole planet, but only if it works.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I see everything we DNA-designed beings do as aiming to generate more options, for more resiliency/fitness. Natural selection weeds out the maladaptive. So adaptive stuff is our aim. AI helps life create more options.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thewiseturtle @romanyam
Yes, I see that you see it like this. But AI is a different game. AI not just a technology but Life 3.0. It is very hard to create a scenario where it won't replace us.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
But what do you see as the difference between AI and
#MachineLearning? And how close do you think this level of AI is?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I define intelligence, in any form, as the ability to model three dimensions of perspectives/goals simultaneously while solving a problem. What do I want? What do you want? What does our environment want? Machine learning is one way to take in and process information.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Why three?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Randomness, really. Why is anything anything? We decided to call this level of thinking where we do objective (3D) mapping of things "intelligence". It's the third of four basic kinds of thinking humans can do: Physical, emotional, intellectual, philosophical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Basic rule of epistemology: confidence in a belief must equal weight of evidence for that belief. If you use random numbers to generate your beliefs, your beliefs are meaningless poetry.
-
-
Yes, the universe, which generates our reality randomly, is indeed poetry, but not meaningless, in my view. (Also, note that our universe's randomness is deterministic and predictable, given enough information. At least given the overwhelming evidence of modern physics.)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.