Fearing AI: Possibility of Sentient Self-Autonomous Robots

[gleem]

E.G., if police can investigate 1,000 leads a day and have an error rate of 10% (100 false leads) and AI provides a billion leads a day and 1% error rate (10 million false leads) the police can still only pursue 1,000 leads, including the 10 errors among them.

And because of this reality (high volume), screening has to happen, which means that the leads aren't just all pursued at random, but scored and pursued preferentially. So a 1% error rate can become a 0.1% error rate because the lower scored guesses aren't pursued.

You are assuming that the investigative body is saturated The more false positives the more innocent persons are put at risk.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a prescient article...

Basically, the war in Ukraine is accelerating the pace at which we approach the inevitable point where people can mass produce fully autonomous slaughter-bots capable of efficient targeted mass murder....

I can already guess what someone might say:

This is nonsense, and since you already know the counterpoints why, perhaps you could respond to them or at least indicate you understand them? I can help by fixing some framing though (re-arranged to be better organized):

Fully autonomous slaughter-bots are no different than sling shots.
Or: Where is the empirical evidence that slaughter-bot swarms are efficient at targeted mass murder?
Or: Show me the blueprints for the Slaughter-bots.

Slingshots aren't autonomous, but I gave a bunch of examples of decades-old slaughter-bots that are. They're already here, and they work great. They're mundane.

Or: Fully autonomous slaughter-bots aren't conscious or self aware, so no big deal, the worst that could happen is they make mistakes when they are killing people.

Sorta, but more basic: slaughter-bots are robots, not AI. I still don't think you understand the difference. This is the key problem in your/the media's understanding of the situation. What's changed isn't that we're figuring out how to make AI, it's that we're making cheaper and more accessible robots: raspberry pi, GPS, radar and gyroscopes on chips, tiny cameras, lithium batteries. A Tomahawk cruise missile costs $2 million (entered service: 1983), but drone with superior robotics costs $50 now. [edit] Note also, most of the newfangled warfare we're seeing in Ukraine isn't even autonomous robots, much less AI controlled. It's human-radio controlled drones.

This, by the way, is why Elon has failed to deliver his self-driving car. He misunderstood it too (not sure if he's figured out the problem yet): self-driving cars are as best we can tell an AI problem (a programming/machine learning problem), not a robotics problem. He thought he could just hang a bunch of sensors on a car and do a little programming and it'd work. It's too complex of a problem for that.

 

[artis]

This, by the way, is why Elon has failed to deliver his self-driving car. He misunderstood it too (not sure if he's figured out the problem yet): self-driving cars are as best we can tell an AI problem (a programming/machine learning problem), not a robotics problem. He thought he could just hang a bunch of sensors on a car and do a little programming and it'd work. It's too complex of a problem for that.

I would say Elon Musk is actually a hype entrepreneur, sure he has delivered some of what he has hyped but truth be told I'm not even sure what his actual physics background or understanding is because some of the things he has said and claimed are just either light years away or not practically feasible.
And that has given him this weird futuristic fanbase of which some are ready to die almost for their messiah.

But I would tend to agree, the problem in the self driving car is actually not the car but entirely the "self"

We already have radar, lidar, all kinds fo sensors etc, good enough to be valuable inputs, the problem is the "brain" because without human like consciousness it doesn't know nor can learn any meaning to any of the objects it sees therefore it has to do a calculation for everything it sees and determine what it is and how to respond to it based on it's training and past experience.
Such an approach takes up time and processing power and in the end can still produce a bad error in some cases, humans on the other hand due to memory and meaning attached to everything can see as little as a silhouetto of a body and immediately know it must be another human and drive accordingly.
Or say have intuition that around the corner an old lady might cross the street even if there isn't one etc, hard to put all of that in a computer.

But it seems their getting there slowly.
What I am interested in seeing is whether they will get rid of the weird computer style mistakes the car sometimes does.

 

[Jarvis323]

This isn't entirely true. Overheated hype tends to presage disappointment, which leads to fewer research dollars being allotted to new developments and applications. This usually happens (unfortunately) just as all the low-hanging fruit gets picked and people actually start to make headway on the truly difficult problems. As someone who's been doing research on graphene for many years, I witnessed this firsthand when a decent fraction of my sponsors basically stopped funding graphene work and moved onto the next hot thing. So the hype failure definitely has consequences, which is what I think the biggest danger is right now in AI R&D.

The problem is that AI research isn't cheap. For example, say someone comes up with an architecture they think will work a little better than a transformer model for text or image generation. They would need 10s of millions of dollars to put their theory to test against the state of the art.

So normal university researchers are restricted essentially to playing with existing models or underpowered toy models and whiteboards. And that doesn't work out very well, because there is no theory that lets you extrapolate to determine how powerful your toy model would be if scaled up.

 

[Jarvis323]

slaughter-bots are robots, not AI. I still don't think you understand the difference. This is the key problem in your/the media's understanding of the situation.

They are controlled by AI, as it is normally understood. What you seem to be asking for is defining AI as what people now tend to consider artificial general intelligence (AGI). It is fine if those words make more sense as the proper terminology to you, but you're also wasting effort making philosophical arguments about how we should use words, and putting yourself out of sync with everybody else who is already using shared terminology.

That said, personally, I think AGI (what you are calling AI) is not very good terminology. Nobody can agree on what it should mean. It seems to be a thing that people argue, "you'll know it when you see it", or "can't exist at all". It is often based on comparison with human intelligence. But if you think about it for a moment, humans don't really have very "general" intelligence, and already can't compete with AI at a large number of tasks.

I think it would make more sense to stop using AGI categorically, or waiting for a "you know it when you see it moment" to take it seriously. Each intelligence (or machine) has some degree of generality in the tasks it can perform well. If you think in these terms, then AGI doesn't deserve as much focus. What matters is not the number of things a model can do, what matters is what kinds of things can done. That is how you know what to expect.

This is part of why it annoys me when people try to drag discussions about AI into armchair philosophical debates.

 

[russ_watters]

They are controlled by AI, as it is normally understood.

Do you mean they would be in the future or are you saying they are now? If they are now, when did that happen and what's the breakthrough/risk that's on the horizon? I thought the claim was 'when we achieve AI, slaughter-bots will become possible and will kill us all.'? I'm still alive.

What you seem to be asking for is defining AI as what people now tend to consider artificial general intelligence (AGI). It is fine if those words make more sense as the proper terminology to you, but you're also wasting effort making philosophical arguments about how we should use words, and putting yourself out of sync with everybody else who is already using shared terminology.

I'm not interested in word games. That's why I use descriptions and practical/real examples. On the contrary, I think it's AI advocates and hypers who are falling for or playing word games. I think "AI" is a substitute for "magic" when dreaming-up these fanciful risks you keep alluding to but never describing in detail. And I'll note again that you didn't respond to any of the descriptions/real examples in what I said. It's you who seems to be playing and trying to steer this into word games here, not me.

 

[russ_watters]

You are assuming that the investigative body is saturated

Right, and you are assuming a really, really large availability of new police interactions. I'm not clear on why you think that would be possible. Police stations aren't full of cops sitting by phones waiting for them to ring. Almost all police are out on the street already and detectives/investigators tend to be heavily overloaded. This sort of thing already shows up when there's a high profile case and they get phone tips; massive over-saturation of low-quality leads. Exceptionally poor case closure rates.

The more false positives the more innocent persons are put at risk.

Note, that if that were true (the premise of police sitting around waiting for the phone to ring were true), that would also mean the other side of the coin would be true as well: massive -- orders of magnitude massive -- unreported/unsolved crime. There aren't 10 million unsolved murders a year in the US either.

 

[gleem]

I now apologize for reviving this thread.

 

[russ_watters]

I now apologize for reviving this thread.

Not your fault but agreed. Thread locked pending moderation and clean up, if it is reopened again at all. By someone else, as im clearly too invested to make those decisions. Where is a moderator-bot when you need one?

 

[berkeman]

After a Mentor discussion, we believe that this thread is valuable enough that it should be reopened. We also agree that @Jarvis323 should be thread banned for their overly-argumentative posts in this thread.

Thread is reopened after that reply ban and significant thread cleanup. Lordy.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Regarding the moratorium letter and its signatories, my wife and I both had a similar initial reaction: follow the money. I joked that maybe someone had found out how to make an AI CEO and Musk and friends were scared about being downsized. She brought up the very good point that maybe they want to pause while they figure out a way to monopolize IP and/or influence regulation and legislation re: AI to their advantage.

AI has really interesting implications for IP that could/should have corporations worried. One fascinating use case has cropped up in the chemical industry over the past few years. Chemical synthesis methods, products, and workflows are often patented or otherwise protected, so that if companies want to employ a synthesis that has a patented product/reaction as one of its steps, they have to pay royalties to the company that controls the IP. AI methods have been deployed to search vast quantities of chemical literature, then plan out synthetic methods that avoid these IP landmines. One can easily see how this could devalue existing IP and raise questions about the future of patentability in the chemical world. I have to imagine similar situations can arise in other fields, and this has far-reaching implications for our patent system.

 

[JLowe]

Care to repeat that in English?

It could perform many more effective actions per minute than a human could ever hope to, even if it was throttled to have its average actions per minute to be on par with humans. So even if it utilized poor strategies and planning, it doesn't matter because it controls individual units at a stupid high level.

 

[artis]

That said, personally, I think AGI (what you are calling AI) is not very good terminology. Nobody can agree on what it should mean. It seems to be a thing that people argue, "you'll know it when you see it", or "can't exist at all". It is often based on comparison with human intelligence. But if you think about it for a moment, humans don't really have very "general" intelligence, and already can't compete with AI at a large number of tasks.

If you are reading this @Jarvis323 , I believe this is a false statement,
Humans unlike current AI, do have general intelligence.
General intelligence is the ability to do and learn a wide range of tasks starting from simple physical ones like dig a ditch , throw a ball, catch a ball (current robots still struggle to do these effectively) up to hard complex tasks like read a book, write a story, interpret a story, learn math, watch movie and feel emotion etc etc etc.

Yes not all humans are equally genetically capable or have the same mental or physical capacity for general intelligence and that is why Einstein came up with relativity but not the drunk living under the bridge (no disrespect for homeless people)
but overall all humans have an amazing capacity to learn vast amounts of complex subjects.

So it is only humans that have ever had general intelligence and our current AI is far from it.

The fact that AI can master GO or protein folding better than a human doesn't prove it's superiority generally it just proves that if you design a clever algorithm and give it huge processing power and memory it can make all kinds of intellectual maneuvers faster than a human.
Humans are really good at face recognition even better than AI, it's just that AI is faster, like you can't sit down for a straight hour swiping through 10 thousand images without getting so exhausted that you can't even recognize your own face in the mirror, AI can do that because it;s a robot, it doesn't get exhausted as long as the cooling fans keep working....

That being said a human with good visual memory will remember a face even if it ever saw it from a weird angle without looking directly from the front, an AI will struggle to recognize such a face because most of the AI algorithms for face recognition use facial features like eye to nose to mouth placement to calculate whether it's a match.

I recall that when I read Mozart's autobiography , he memorized Allegri's "Missere mei Deus" from memory after simply hearing it in a catholic church while he was a kid, IIRC he was in his early teens.
And by memorized I mean to the point of matching each note with the original on a piece of paper.I believe that what AI will do and is doing is simply advance our technological progress faster than we would ourselves, we do have general intelligence and we tend to come up with all kinds of intelligent solutions as we have done since the beginning of time it's just that AI outperforms us mostly with respect to time.
Atleast the way I see it, what would take us say 100 years will take us 20 with AI or so.

What would take a bunch of detectives 5 days like face recognition going through data will take them 2 or 1 or less than a day with good AI.

 

[gleem]

@russ_watters and @berkeman what's with the CHATGPT username if I may be so forward to ask?

 

[berkeman]

@russ_watters and @berkeman what's with the CHATGPT username if I may be so forward to ask?

... --- ...
... --- ...

 

[fresh_42]

@russ_watters and @berkeman what's with the CHATGPT username if I may be so forward to ask?

We don't know. Some whisper about a calendar thing behind the scene. One cannot know.

 

[gleem]

Where is a moderator-bot when you need one?

Hmmm.

 

[artis]

@russ_watters and @berkeman what's with the CHATGPT username if I may be so forward to ask?

@Jarvis323 fears of AI taking over have materialized, check the owner of your credit card it might just be "ChatGPT"

 

[Structure seeker]

All the fuss about AI... as if there's anything more in it than just programmed behaviour. It simply calculates in all the feedback it has had during training, then producing the most "acceptable" output according to those that trained it.

It's in essence a power magnifier for the trainers: your opinions of what should be taken into account are indeed taken into account every time AI produces output. AI is just capable of applying the given opinions it was trained with lightning fast to anything it is fed, to such a degree of consistency that it can give unpredictable unwanted results if not carefully handled.

IMO power always should be criticized and bound to rules of democracy, to ensure it will defend the rights of citizens rather than attack them. For myself, I fear that - if we let ourselves be carried away too much by the belief in AI as "alive", by its halftrue promises, by technological progress and especially by the idea of enhanced evolution - there will be a highly violent seize for power by some transhumanist in the name of the aforementioned beliefs. I'm afraid that, if people do not choose for good powers to prevail and to believe that the direction of true progress is already in very good hands, they might try to let AI rule, but in fact that will always be just an impure spooky replication of its trainers, making no necessary exceptions to good (at best) but never entirely perfect rules. There is a reason that humans do government, and it is making exceptions out of love.

However, if we DO choose the right thing, I do so hope it will lead to a more smooth, respectful, easy, fast and extremely capable public service by AI wherever appropriate, which sees when a human decision of any sort is needed and then passes over control. I believe alive beings are above AI, it's not as if whatever we make could ever, EVER be better than ourselves. Enhanced evolution where AI makes the decisions even denies the whole idea of creativity and love in life - each decision it makes is merely a calculated, cold, indifferent move.

AI can calculate fast and combine results, but for AI as deciding factor, decisions would be made based on past opinions of the trainers without realizing the importance of new insights - that is NOT the way forward, but the way of having to deal with unadapted, oldfashioned enforced opinions for way and way too long. In truth it is an automated blockade for true progress, which I would describe as "whatever needs a new original way of seeking what is good". As if humans alone aren't already difficult enough to persuade of an original way of seeking what is good. We should not expect truly important aid of what came from our works, but of what we feel that formed us, our educators and our societal roots! Whatever made it so that we now stand up for that which we stand up for.

 

[Hornbein]

Obey or be destroyed.

 

[Astronuc]

AI disclaimer: "The facts in this collection were found using artificial intelligence technology and may contain errors."

It did contain errors.

 

[Algr]

When the AI takes over, it won't look like the Matrix, or any other movie you've seen. There won't be any creepy synthesized voice declaring a new order. When the AI takes over, it will look like nothing has changed at all. You'll see the same old politicians reading the same old teleprompters, and having the same committees choosing their positions for them. The difference will be far in the background.

Those teleprompter speeches will be written by AI, of course. Politicians will learn that sticking to the script avoids errors and gaffes, and so gives them a better chance of winning. The committees will be using polls and AIs that are more accurate than ever before. The AIs will have had (or tapped into) personal conversations with just about every voter, and will be able to gauge political motivation from conversations that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with politics. The AI will also be quite skilled at planting ideas in a voter's head, and making them think that they were the ones who arrived at some special insight. No magic or mind control, just skilled personalized conversation. That of course is the best way to get someone to the polls.

There will be no need to fix any votes, or punish any politician who falls out of line. The AI will simply adapt to whatever happens. Candidates who stick to the scripts will simply have better answers and more charisma. There will still be important differences between the parties. But the AI will choose both sides. It will decide what political temperature is best, and how much voters should or should not hate each other.

In the end, everyone will turn on their screens and see a world custom tailored to them. A world that seems logically consistent with what they see outside their windows. Not even the AI will be able to make everyone happy, but it may do better than anyone else ever has.

 

[Rive]

Not even the AI will be able to make everyone happy, but it may do better than anyone else ever has.

You are clearly lacking compared to an AI.
An AI would be able to deduce that all that personalized hassle could be spared by very uniformly drugging everybody numb and happy.
Even better: an AI would be able to deduce that the most efficient would be to replace everybody with a happy-by-default sub-AI

 

[Algr]

An AI would not need to deduce those ideas, it could read about it in all sorts of science fiction stories and know that we see that as a bad outcome. It will never get tired or frustrated or angry with us, it is a machine.

An AI that was totally beyond human intelligence might see itself like a gardener or pet groomer. It would take pride in healthy and active humans, and see the above scenario as failure. If humans need to think we are in charge, it would just hide itself or play dumb, while orchestrating society in the background. The model of what is best for humans would be chosen by the humans who own the machines, so if anything is to be feared, it is them.

Humans don't go on rampages trying to drive monkeys extinct. We don't even attack bugs so long as we can keep them out of our spaces. I've seen the video where the AI was talking like it wanted vengeance on humans, and I expect it just found some science fiction and decided that that was what we wanted it to say. It either didn't really know what the words meant, or it was roleplaying.

 

[Demystifier]

Unlike natural intelligence, artificial intelligence is not developed through the autonomous survival of the fittest. Hence AI does not develop the autonomous survival skills, so it is to be expected that we can always easily shut it down when we don't like it, because it does not have mechanisms to prevent it. AI is like a very intelligent nerd who does not know what to do when other children physically attack him.

 

[Algr]

artificial intelligence is not developed through the autonomous survival of the fittest.

The specific ideas are accepted or rejected through the AI's self-play and simulations. But I think you are talking about the AI as a whole, and in that sense I agree. The comparison with the intelligent nerd is apt, and I think rather important. A person's ability to succeed in life has more to do with social skills than the kind of intelligence that is valued in schools. AI will force us to re-evaluate what we value in ourselves.

 

[Hornbein]

 

[JLowe]

I see no reason to expect AI to share any similarities with humans other than raw intelligence. It won't spontaneously develop complex emotions, desires, fears or strong survival instinct. If it's only programmed to be intelligent, it'll be intelligent and nothing else. Although, if it's given important responsibilities and the capability to act autonomously, it will have to be carefully programmed so that it doesn't decide the best way to carry out it's programming leads to undesirable consequences, like wiping out half the population.

But many humans have decided wiping out half the population is right way to achieve their goals, so maybe having AI make those decisions isn't all the much of a downgrade.

 

[Klystron]

"Uncorruptible AI" kinda reminds me of the phrase "Unsinkable ship". As in Titanic.

The owners of the White Star shipping line that included HMS Titanic advertised and popularized an outright lie. Even if the internal vertical bulkheads properly sealed each section, the cast iron exterior rivet failures exposed entire compartments to seawater influx.

However, point taken. Let me clarify that I intended incorruptible (sorry for the original typo) in the sense of 'self correcting' and not (easily) perverted or bribed. I was considering pilotless airplanes and spaceships in this context where central code should not be modified on-the-fly yet must adapt to changing conditions.

 

[sbrothy]

The owners of the White Star shipping line that included HMS Titanic advertised and popularized an outright lie. Even if the internal vertical bulkheads properly sealed each section, the cast iron exterior rivet failures exposed entire compartments to seawater influx.

However, point taken. Let me clarify that I intended incorruptible (sorry for the original typo) in the sense of 'self correcting' and not (easily) perverted or bribed. I was considering pilotless airplanes and spaceships in this context where central code should not be modified on-the-fly yet must adapt to changing conditions.

I'm afraid that maybe you took my comment more serious than intended. But let's be serious for a second then:

What I worry about, especially in the near future, is that the children of tomorrow will be unable to recognize agency when taking a phone call or socializing online.

In the near future - someone interacting with you, where the lights seem to be on but in reality there's noone home, may look like strong AI but in reality be a "zombie" designed, or intentionally "parameterized" [sorry] to push your buttons specifically.

I'm too old to understand. I'm sure tomorrow's children will meander through what looks like a sociological minefield to me just fine. That I'm glad it isn't me "meandering" is probably very natural.

The next 50 years will be exciting for sure...