I'm on the side of humans remaining special, at least on planet Earth. My strong sense is that a large majority of the public feels that way, and voting results in the future will start to reflect that regarding AI regulations.
I agree with Frank Herbert's view of "thinking machines".
Why do you want machines to replace human intelligence and ability? I find that dystopian. AI could have meant Augmented Intelligence (which was proposed a long time ago), not let's see when we can replace all human activity.
One is humanist, the other is anti-human, (in the end goal at least).
> There will hopefully (?) come a time one day when human beings provide only ultimate value judgments, and everything else is done by machines.
In their previous grandparent post. They do reserve a place for human value judgement, but I doubt even that remains if everything else has been automated. The machines will decide what we value. We already see that to some degree with algorithmic engagement and targeted advertisements.
The (?) is meant to express doubt that it is a good thing on net. But regardless of whether it is, it is what is likely to happen, and there will certainly be some good things that come out of it.
Seems like machines being able to replace human intelligence and ability will be a dystopia in the short term, but it’s the only route to a long-term utopia.
5. This is a science fiction story. No such thing exists in the real world and the people claiming it will soon are not experts in the relevant fields of how it would kill everyone.
Hype objects when it comes to the idea that they will soon become recursively self-improving, boot strapping themselves to super intelligence, at which point we will be at their mercy. Because that's basically the p(doom) argument, that some probability is associated with ASI killing us all.
That's different from what we have today with powerful software tools that people can use for all sorts of things, which is an extension of what we already had in less concentrated form. It makes things easier for humans to do good and bad things, but it's not an autonomous digital god.
It's bad that a few people are making such a gamble on behalf of billions. That could work if climate change were literally an asteroid about to strike the Earth and AI was the only thing that could figure out how to alter it's course before then. But it doesn't really work when climate change will unfold as a catastrophe over the next few centuries. Because then it becomes a decision the entire planet should be making over time, not a few tech billionaires and their friends in government.
Now apply this logic to human slavery. The "good impacts" are what profits the slave holders, what makes their lives easier at the expense of the enslaved. Apply it to child labor and labor exploitation in general before labor laws. Then you'll see one side is behaving in a greedy manner, ignoring the humanity of the other side.
Most people work for a living. Then there are people who find meaning in work. And people who advance in life by working. You want to do away with all that?
reply