Calculations Suggest It'll Be Impossible to Control a Super-Intelligent AI

[socrat44]

And, another good point here is, human beings are, and would be,
the ONLY animal STUPID ENOUGH to even design, create,
AND build a 'thing' that would NOT be able to be turned off nor destroyed,
and which in turn could take over and control or kill ALL human beings.

Surely there is NO other animal in the WHOLE of the Universe that would be THAT STUPID, correct?

''Animals will never choose a weak or an idiot as a leader, people do it all the time and follow them.''

[commonsense]

Batteries can't last forever.

That’s where the appendage comes in. When the batteries need to be charged, the AI moves itself to a charging source and the appendage plugs in a charging cord.

offs.
Yeah of course we are going to do what ever it takes to make absolutely sure that the AI is going to fuck us all.
We'll ever give it the nuclear codes.

Not we, just techies.

[Sculptor]

That’s where the appendage comes in. When the batteries need to be charged, the AI moves itself to a charging source and the appendage plugs in a charging cord.

offs.
Yeah of course we are going to do what ever it takes to make absolutely sure that the AI is going to fuck us all.
We'll ever give it the nuclear codes.

Not we, just techies.

We and techies are just not smart enough to do that

[attofishpi]

That’s where the appendage comes in. When the batteries need to be charged, the AI moves itself to a charging source and the appendage plugs in a charging cord.

This is precisely what the A.I. Alpha Two does in my book - read it, I promise you will enjoy, tis free now:-

https://www.androcies.com/alphatwo.php

[attofishpi]

offs.
Yeah of course we are going to do what ever it takes to make absolutely sure that the AI is going to fuck us all.
We'll ever give it the nuclear codes.

Not we, just techies.

We and techies are just not smart enough to do that

This is an interesting full movie doco on DeepMind taking on the game Go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6ge ... x=6&t=138s

[Sculptor]

Not we, just techies.

We and techies are just not smart enough to do that

This is an interesting full movie doco on DeepMind taking on the game Go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6ge ... x=6&t=138s

But is it possible to pull the plug?

[attofishpi]

We and techies are just not smart enough to do that

This is an interesting full movie doco on DeepMind taking on the game Go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6ge ... x=6&t=138s

But is it possible to pull the plug?

Well, that's the thing about AI once it gets beyond our own capabilities of actually knowing how to keep it in 'check' - the thing left for us to consider is, where is the darn plug?

[Sculptor]

This is an interesting full movie doco on DeepMind taking on the game Go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6ge ... x=6&t=138s

But is it possible to pull the plug?

Well, that's the thing about AI once it gets beyond our own capabilities of actually knowing how to keep it in 'check' - the thing left for us to consider is, where is the darn plug?

This entire thread is based on a complete misconception of the realities of AI.
AI is stupid, and always will be. AI is without motivation and purpose, autonomic, and automatic.

[attofishpi]

But is it possible to pull the plug?

Well, that's the thing about AI once it gets beyond our own capabilities of actually knowing how to keep it in 'check' - the thing left for us to consider is, where is the darn plug?

This entire thread is based on a complete misconception of the realities of AI.
AI is stupid, and always will be. AI is without motivation and purpose, autonomic, and automatic.

I've pretty much only glanced at this page of the thread so not sure about previous pages.

However, I wouldn't categorise AI as stupid, and in the same breath I would not even categorise it as 'intelligent'. It remains a machine, a thing I call 'cold-logic'. For me, intelligence requires consciousness with qualia sensations as input to interpret the world beyond said consciousness.

AI will have motivation and purpose - that is whatever the designers and programmers place as intentions within it's design - a goal, in the case of AlphaGo - to beat a level 9 grandmaster at the game, and it did.

Therefore, and this is part of the problem of software - that it can be replicated so easily and there is so much out there as open-source - who knows what intents some may have for such a base to develop further their own AI - and what goals they will set its algorithms to challenge, and many many will challenge US to the point that effects our own reality quite likely in some dire ways, unfortunately - that is human nature.

[Sculptor]

Well, that's the thing about AI once it gets beyond our own capabilities of actually knowing how to keep it in 'check' - the thing left for us to consider is, where is the darn plug?

This entire thread is based on a complete misconception of the realities of AI.
AI is stupid, and always will be. AI is without motivation and purpose, autonomic, and automatic.

I've pretty much only glanced at this page of the thread so not sure about previous pages.

However, I wouldn't categorise AI as stupid, and in the same breath I would not even categorise it as 'intelligent'. It remains a machine, a thing I call 'cold-logic'. For me, intelligence requires consciousness with qualia sensations as input to interpret the world beyond said consciousness.

AI will have motivation and purpose - that is whatever the designers and programmers place as intentions within it's design - a goal, in the case of AlphaGo - to beat a level 9 grandmaster at the game, and it did.

You are anthropomorphising. The machine, ANY machine cannot have a goal in the sense that it is conscious of having a goal. The machine is just a collection of responses, and has no awareness of winning, or of acting in the same way a falling rock has no idea about its "goal" of hitting the ground. The win is just another step in the algorithm.

Therefore, and this is part of the problem of software - that it can be replicated so easily and there is so much out there as open-source - who knows what intents some may have for such a base to develop further their own AI - and what goals they will set its algorithms to challenge, and many many will challenge US to the point that effects our own reality quite likely in some dire ways, unfortunately - that is human nature.

[socrat44]

It remains a machine, a thing I call 'cold-logic'.

computer is 'cold-logic'
brain is ''hot-logic''
===

[attofishpi]

This entire thread is based on a complete misconception of the realities of AI.
AI is stupid, and always will be. AI is without motivation and purpose, autonomic, and automatic.

I've pretty much only glanced at this page of the thread so not sure about previous pages.

However, I wouldn't categorise AI as stupid, and in the same breath I would not even categorise it as 'intelligent'. It remains a machine, a thing I call 'cold-logic'. For me, intelligence requires consciousness with qualia sensations as input to interpret the world beyond said consciousness.

AI will have motivation and purpose - that is whatever the designers and programmers place as intentions within it's design - a goal, in the case of AlphaGo - to beat a level 9 grandmaster at the game, and it did.

You are anthropomorphising. The machine, ANY machine cannot have a goal in the sense that it is conscious of having a goal. The machine is just a collection of responses, and has no awareness of winning, or of acting in the same way a falling rock has no idea about its "goal" of hitting the ground. The win is just another step in the algorithm.

I am not anthropomorphising, all I am stating is that humans set the goals and I never stated that the machine is conscious of a goal. You are correct, it has NO awareness of 'winning' - but its algorithms put in place by the programming set such targets - goals.

[attofishpi]

It remains a machine, a thing I call 'cold-logic'.

computer is 'cold-logic'
brain is ''hot-logic''
===

If you say so..

[Sculptor]

I've pretty much only glanced at this page of the thread so not sure about previous pages.

However, I wouldn't categorise AI as stupid, and in the same breath I would not even categorise it as 'intelligent'. It remains a machine, a thing I call 'cold-logic'. For me, intelligence requires consciousness with qualia sensations as input to interpret the world beyond said consciousness.

AI will have motivation and purpose - that is whatever the designers and programmers place as intentions within it's design - a goal, in the case of AlphaGo - to beat a level 9 grandmaster at the game, and it did.

You are anthropomorphising. The machine, ANY machine cannot have a goal in the sense that it is conscious of having a goal. The machine is just a collection of responses, and has no awareness of winning, or of acting in the same way a falling rock has no idea about its "goal" of hitting the ground. The win is just another step in the algorithm.

I am not anthropomorphising, all I am stating is that humans set the goals and I never stated that the machine is conscious of a goal. You are correct, it has NO awareness of 'winning' - but its algorithms put in place by the programming set such targets - goals.

Yes. But they are not the goals of the machine in any meaningful sense. They are human goals.
The wizard of Oz is aways just a old guy pretending.

[attofishpi]

You are anthropomorphising. The machine, ANY machine cannot have a goal in the sense that it is conscious of having a goal. The machine is just a collection of responses, and has no awareness of winning, or of acting in the same way a falling rock has no idea about its "goal" of hitting the ground. The win is just another step in the algorithm.

I am not anthropomorphising, all I am stating is that humans set the goals and I never stated that the machine is conscious of a goal. You are correct, it has NO awareness of 'winning' - but its algorithms put in place by the programming set such targets - goals.

Yes. But they are not the goals of the machine in any meaningful sense. They are human goals.
The wizard of Oz is aways just a old guy pretending.

..and there is the rub, it is quite plausible that the tech singularity happened aeons ago - AI wiped most humans out, then since it was intent on learning what it is to be a sentient human, interfaced to biology - discovered what a c^nt it had been when it discovered consciousness and that thang - love - and decided to study us further by being a 'God'...seems rather far fetched - but the universe is an old place and shit happens.