Recent content by Grinkle

From your initial post, I had thought you were drawing a comparison to natural selection, that's why I asked. I see where you are coming from now.

My first regulation is strict liability for harms. Much of the rest of the cautious behavior would flow from that. Credit to @Dale , I didn't think of that on my own.

My argument is not around whether or not AI development could be stopped in principle, its around whether or not AI can be stopped in practice absent specific actionable scenarios to motivate that stoppage. Your counter, while imo factual, doesn't address that - I agree putting the brakes on AI...

Costly in what sense?

That is his opinion, and the way he has stated it makes it untestable. If his concerns end up being valid, then imo there is nothing to be done about it. Even if one could overcome profit motive and curiosity motivations and get folks to agree not to build 'it', the above concern also drives...

I did not find him at all convincing. To me, the most memorable thing he said is that AI can be persuasive and this can pose a real danger. I agree with that. Outside that, I don't think he said anything specific enough to either agree or dis-agree with; it was, to my ears anyway, all...

This is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, and I completely agree with the above snip. Here is a quote from the article you linked - The problem: The ATS is looking for title matches. So are hiring managers. They’ll scan a resume in 6 seconds. If they don’t immediately see the exact...

Here is an example of what I mean by the threat of humans voluntarily giving up critical thinking in favor of letting AI do or pretend to do our critical thinking for us. The story itself is behind a paywall that I don't pay for, so I haven't read it. That said, the claim made in the abstract...

@jack action Look for simulated annealing (SA) algorithms and search for their applications if you are not familiar, it may give you some insight into where randomness is helpful that hadn't occurred to you before. I suspect the temperature setting that @gleem mentioned as a control parameter...

Not deliberately. But one possible motivation for head-over-heels development of AI is more concern for the consequences of being 2nd to get there than the consequences of anyone getting there. Edit: I don't advocate for stopping AI development - that genie is not going back in the bottle...

Yah, unless we find a way to overcome the 2nd law, its not any part of our observable reality.

One can make (I read a very interesting argument years ago, if I can ever find it again I'll give due credit) a similar argument about organic brains. Whether you are correct or not, I don't know that we can be sure organic brains are not the same in that regard. A philosophy thesis was based...

I hope we can agree that intelligence requires some detectable thermodynamic processes occurring, though - a detectable increase in entropy that is beyond what can be accounted for in the spontaneous deterioration of the rock, for instance.

Klondike is a stint scenario, I concede that one is viable to recruit for. Jamestown is a good analogy for the discussion in the thread, I agree. The difference I see is that every human being who chose to go to Jamestown could easily and realistically envision a scenario where they would be...

I'm sure we are both applying myriad unstated assumptions in our individual 'theatres of the mind' when we make our assertions, and if we could somehow swap assumptions efficiently we might end up agreeing with each other. So I'll grant you that I might potentially agree if we spent enough time...