TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The Merge

222 pointsby holmanover 7 years ago

56 comments

shostackover 7 years ago
I&#x27;d love to know Sam&#x27;s views on his particular responsibility in addressing this as a member of Reddit&#x27;s board.<p>If the &quot;attention epidemic&quot; and risk of hacking people&#x27;s attention is high, Reddit is likely to be just as culpable in that as Facebook. Further, Reddit has shown to be ripe for weaponizing by hostile foreign nations given the Russian meddling. This has not gotten <i>nearly</i> the attention it warrants, and many feel Reddit has done nothing particularly worthwhile to address the matter.<p>So in an age where algorithms optimize to capture attention for the benefit of platform owners, and platform owners are incentivized by ad revenue where the advertisers may have malicious social engineering motives, or where the platform is seen as an attack vector outside of ads, what is the responsibility (legally and morally) or platform owners and investors in doing something about this?
ak_yoover 7 years ago
I don&#x27;t quite get why this is written as if the author is a neutral observer of this phenomenon, when in reality he works extremely hard every day to make sure it happens.
评论 #15873474 未加载
评论 #15872928 未加载
sevensorover 7 years ago
Computers are tools. Some of the tasks for which we have formerly used cognition can be handled by them, just as some of the tasks for which we formerly used teeth have been largely delegated to knives. This doesn&#x27;t mean we&#x27;re merging with the computer any more than we have with the knife, nor does it mean computers can replace our brains any more than knives have replaced our teeth.
评论 #15873478 未加载
评论 #15873260 未加载
chadgeidelover 7 years ago
I&#x27;d be happy if my phone&#x27;s autocorrect feature would actually produce sentences with proper spelling and reasonable grammar. Apparently that&#x27;s still too hard for our mighty machine learning systems. I&#x27;m not going to merge with any technology that is worse than my stupid mush brain.<p>[edit - why am I still editing the spelling and grammar on this post?]
评论 #15873560 未加载
评论 #15872940 未加载
评论 #15875214 未加载
ericandover 7 years ago
&quot;It’s probably going to happen sooner than most people think. Hardware is improving at an exponential rate—the most surprising thing I’ve learned working on OpenAI is just how correlated increasing computing power and AI breakthroughs are—and the number of smart people working on AI is increasing exponentially as well. Double exponential functions get away from you fast.&quot;<p>I&#x27;m not convinced that an exponential number of people working on AI produces exponential advancements. Wouldn&#x27;t we see diminished returns with each new person, presumably each one is less capable and less expert? I see AI experiencing a hype-cycle like disillusionment before seeing &quot;double exponential&quot; returns.
评论 #15871968 未加载
评论 #15871888 未加载
评论 #15871936 未加载
评论 #15871961 未加载
评论 #15875314 未加载
adamw2kover 7 years ago
Respect the thought here, though definitely feel like we&#x27;re still a ways off. That said, what resonated most with me was the footnote:<p>&quot;I believe attention hacking is going to be the sugar epidemic of this generation. I can feel the changes in my own life — I can still wistfully remember when I had an attention span. My friends’ young children don’t even know that’s something they should miss. I am angry and unhappy more often, but I channel it into productive change less often, instead chasing the dual dopamine hits of likes and outrage.&quot;<p>Further underscores for us as a society to find time to step away from technology and experience the &quot;world&quot; (nature, art, human interaction, etc.).
rficcagliaover 7 years ago
“As we have learned, scientific advancement eventually happens if the laws of physics do not prevent it.”<p>The dinosaurs probably disagree. Eventually they might have developed tools and then technology but then planet-scale comet destruction and&#x2F;or volcanoes got in the way.<p>We however don’t need a cataclysm to delay or indefinitely defer scientific progress...we have various self-inflicted ways to impede progress: religion, dictators, racism, consumerism, spending money on bombs vs. education, denying climate change, tolerating genocide, electing crazy people to run nuclear armed nations, taxing graduate students, the McRib, etc.
评论 #15873959 未加载
md224over 7 years ago
We may be heading toward a merge, but I&#x27;m not sure it&#x27;s with machines. I think it could be with each other <i>via</i> machines.<p>Cybernetics refers to this as a metasystem transition:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Metasystem_transition" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Metasystem_transition</a><p>(Shameless plug: if you want to see what it looks like when a hivemind speaks, check out <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;AskOuija" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;AskOuija</a>)
jonathanbergerover 7 years ago
If Sam believes the merge has already begun, then his, Musk’s, and other’s predictions about superhuman AI are really just describing a rather boring fact about the world.<p>His examples of the merge in progress are social media determining how we feel and search engines deciding what we think. The problem here is the anthropomorphizing that humans have done throughout history to understand things they can’t fully explain. Gods don’t get angry and cause rain and search engines don’t make decisions about what we think. A search engine is just a complex math formula that can’t make a decision anymore than a calculator “decides” to output 4 when someone types 2 + 2.<p>Bostrom and others in this camp always have a hard time describing what “superhuman” will look like or mean. But I will guess in 2075 that the goal posts will be moved and it will be said that in 2017 we hadn’t realized that there was already superhuman AI, as evidenced by calculators that could already do math faster than a human.
fossuserover 7 years ago
The friendly AI goal alignment problem is a pretty interesting part of this and there’s interesting work going on there.<p>The basic idea is how do you effectively align a general intelligence’s goal with humans so that it uses its intelligence to solve problems in a way that aligns with our own human utility functions.<p>If humans figure out general AI before goal alignment it may have outcomes we don’t want.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lesswrong.com&#x2F;lw&#x2F;ld&#x2F;the_hidden_complexity_of_wishes&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lesswrong.com&#x2F;lw&#x2F;ld&#x2F;the_hidden_complexity_of_wishes&#x2F;</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;EUjc1WuyPT8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;EUjc1WuyPT8</a>
评论 #15872239 未加载
评论 #15872042 未加载
rsp1984over 7 years ago
<i>&quot;Our phones control us and tell us what to do when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.&quot;</i><p>Ok, let&#x27;s see. I check my Android phone perhaps 5 times a day. It&#x27;s in silent mode all the time and has a broken screen since 2.5 years and I don&#x27;t care. I have perhaps 10 apps installed of which I use maybe 5 on a semi-regular basis. I check Facebook &#x2F; LinkedIn perhaps 1 time a day and when I do I&#x27;m always slightly annoyed by the amount of useless crap in my feed. I don&#x27;t use or need Snapchat or Insta or Twitter or any other social media. I doubt I even need Facebook. I do use Google, a lot, but mostly as a gateway to Stackoverflow or to satisfy my curiosity about something I&#x27;ve read somewhere else on the internet. I doubt it has any influence on what I think.<p>Am I really such an outlier?
评论 #15874484 未加载
评论 #15874724 未加载
评论 #15874837 未加载
评论 #15874869 未加载
评论 #15875923 未加载
评论 #15874494 未加载
tvuralover 7 years ago
I think it&#x27;s unclear how much progress has been made on the superhuman AI problem. We haven&#x27;t pinned down a good definition of intelligence, or figured out what it is that makes monkeys smarter than mice and us smarter than monkeys. We do have a lot of progress in specific domains, like image&#x2F;speech recognition, but it&#x27;s hard to tell whether they&#x27;re on the critical path to superhuman AI because we don&#x27;t know what the critical path is yet. That makes the timeline unpredictable, but biased a priori towards &quot;far away&quot;. It&#x27;s possible that better hardware will accelerate progress, but with CPU clock speeds flattening out, significantly better hardware is not guaranteed in the future.
abstractbillover 7 years ago
&quot;Until I made a real effort to combat it, I found myself getting extremely addicted to the internet.&quot;<p>This seems to imply sama is resisting the inevitable merge. Can&#x27;t we instead try to steer it in a more positive direction? Where are the startups trying to keep you addicted to the internet in a way that improves your life? They don&#x27;t seem to exist, because the incentives aren&#x27;t right -- it&#x27;s way more profitable to keep you hooked in ways that make your life worse. How do we fix those incentives?
评论 #15871937 未加载
评论 #15872079 未加载
评论 #15872109 未加载
d--bover 7 years ago
I have never been a fan of theories that give agency to superhuman phenomena.<p>In Sapiens, the author argues that wheat enslaved humanity into producing more of it.<p>Sure it&#x27;s an interesting way to think about this, but it&#x27;s not what is happening. People grow wheat because it has a lot of nutriments and can be kept in grains, and can be harvested twice a year.<p>Similarly you look at your phone because you find it useful not because it enslaved you into doing it.<p>Sure you lose some things when you have the worlds knowledge at your fingertips, but you win a lot too. When you had to look up the GDP of France in a book, it was harder to have fact-based arguments...<p>Anyway, I think General AI can become a very bad thing, but we shouldn&#x27;t confuse it with &quot;phones are controlling our lives&quot; cause that simply isn&#x27;t true.
creepover 7 years ago
The cybernetics movement has always sat uneasy with me.I don&#x27;t see how a full transition to improvements in the physical plane will help human beings who are primarily intuitive, feeling beings. We are already disconnected from our bodies, now why would we continue to attempt to augment our minds and limbs with machine parts. I don&#x27;t want to be a machine, I love my brain. My brain has emergent properties far more complex than any machine, and even if we could build computers that mimicked the brain or parts of the brain, I would like to keep my own. There is no other brain exactly like mine. My brain took millions of fucking years to create-- it&#x27;s amazing that I&#x27;m alive. Machines are not alive. One could attribute a small amount of consciousness to them, if one were especially philosophically inclined, but still machines seem anti-thetical to the way we exist that it seems so wrong to develop towards &quot;merging&quot; with them. I have no trouble using a machine to facilitate the communication and visualization of my ideas, but this thing will not become a part of me.
chxover 7 years ago
The impossibility of these beliefs is summarized well in this comment made today <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15869657" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15869657</a> regarding AlphaZero:<p>&gt; Makes you wonder what will happen when instead of the rules of chess, you put in the axioms of logic and natural numbers. And give it 8 months of compute.<p>The answers are more realistic:<p>&gt; How do you score this computation? What&#x27;s your goal? There&#x27;s no checkmate here. (this was mine)<p>&gt; If you&#x27;re talking about formal proofs or maths, I&#x27;m not sure how this would apply in general as the branching factor for each &#x27;move&#x27; in a proof is efficiently infinite.<p>Also, there was a talk where a Google engineer admitted that a car you can put your kid into to drive them to school is still more than three decades away. From other sources, this is even more likely because the trolley problem doesn&#x27;t seem solvable and so we would need to drastically decrease potential interaction between pedestrians and self driving cars which requires building guard rails, reforming transit and so on.<p>Don&#x27;t subscribe to the hype.<p>Not to mention Katherine Bailey&#x27;s excellent article (well, all of them on medium are on AI and really good reads):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@katherinebailey&#x2F;why-machine-learning-is-not-a-path-to-the-singularity-540d957ef847" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@katherinebailey&#x2F;why-machine-learning-is-...</a><p>&gt; One thing that both the pessimistic and optimistic takes on the Singularity have in common is a complete lack of rigor in defining what they’re even talking about.
评论 #15874354 未加载
评论 #15874750 未加载
hammockover 7 years ago
&gt;Our self-worth is so based on our intelligence that we believe it must be singular and not slightly higher than all the other animals on a continuum.<p>Speak for yourself. I doubt Sam meant to appear ignorant of other perspectives on the world. However it would be nice to consider them when writing general insights, as opposed to simply tunneling his own point of view.
maldusiecleover 7 years ago
&gt; Our phones control us and tell us what to do when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.<p>This really reads like self-satire.
评论 #15874111 未加载
评论 #15871903 未加载
scandoxover 7 years ago
&gt; It is a failure of human imagination and human arrogance to assume that we will never build things smarter than ourselves.<p>No it&#x27;s 21st Century IT-bloke failure of imagination and arrogance. A failure to imagine change: specifically starting to hit real walls and running out of superficial areas of expansion to distract you from the lack of intrinsic progress. It&#x27;s 21st Century IT-bloke arrogance imagining that the context that has rewarded you with money and power, is also at the heart of an earth-shattering scientific revolution...and not just (which is significant) another industrial revolution leading to new and all too human plateaus.
LeoJiWooover 7 years ago
I&#x27;m not convinced on the &quot;merge&quot; happening. I fear humans cling to that idea, because we want a biological part of our selves to pass on.<p>I expect a technological singularity to supplant&#x2F;replace biological life completely.
评论 #15875362 未加载
评论 #15873576 未加载
conatusover 7 years ago
Interesting piece, though I feel flawed in at least some pretty fundamental ways.<p>1. Humans have always been &quot;merged&quot; with technology. It is becoming more pervasive now, more powerful and to some extent more intimate, but it has always been the case. For example, the evolutionary advances of homo sapiens were in part a result of our ability to &quot;out source&quot; elements of digestion to cooking, enabling our intelligence to outstrip rival animals and hominids. Other examples: farming, writing, the printing press, telegraphs and so on.<p>2. For most of human existence humans have believed in forces superior to themselves, whose intelligence, power and strength out strip their own: whether God, gods or other metaphysical forces. Its amusing to me how theological tropes reappear in these writings with a high degree of regularity. Now one might argue that the difference is that AIs &quot;really exist&quot;. But crucially the idea that humans have always considered themselves totally &quot;top of the pile&quot; seems radically false. It is at best a very limited notion in human society. Even modernity, increasingly secularised, was quick to assert that human mastery was at best an illusion, e.g. the psychoanalytic or Darwinian revolution.<p>3. The obsession with AI being the largest existential threat to the human species seems hubristic in the extreme given that a very current and very real threat is already here and it is often the most poor that are already feeling its effects: catastrophic climate change.
评论 #15873326 未加载
reza_nover 7 years ago
A lot of the examples brought up are innovations in communication, not AI. Phones, social media, and search are communication platforms. Just like books, newspapers, telegraph, telephones, internet, they enable communication, interaction, ideas, innovation, etc. Even what we consider AI today is just a complicated birds nest of human driven math. Sure, we can go ahead and classify phones as co evolving AI, but the same can be said of plants, trees, and animals that have co evolved with us as well.
agitatorover 7 years ago
I have had the same thought experiments that lead to this inevitable conclusion, that we are the vehicle that will create a new, immortal, more efficient intelligence and there won&#x27;t really be a place left for us slow, in-evolved, inefficient, ape-like creatures. It&#x27;s an unpleasant thought, but what other conclusion do you all see? I see some people arguing that &quot;this is a bit out there&quot; etc. but whether it&#x27;s sooner, or later, i think it&#x27;s inevitable.<p>The interesting thing to me is that life and evolution propagate because of the laws of physics. It&#x27;s theorized that life is a chain reaction that evolves out of a simple necessity to be as efficient as possible. So this new life for will potentially depart from that natural basis for evolution.<p>What do you guys think though, do you really think a merge will happen? This is obviously a long term existential and depressing discussion, but really, when an intelligence with much more potential than ours arrises, will there really be any point in us lingering around? Do we even have a chance at this merge? I mean, I guess I see the urgency, we would need to start now, so that any innovation in AI is really linked to improving our own cognition from the get-go, otherwise we are just a stepping-stone for life originating from this solar system.
评论 #15875531 未加载
评论 #15875561 未加载
sajidover 7 years ago
I fear this is wishful thinking. Advances in AI are progressing a lot quicker than advances in neural interfaces. So we will most probably have superhuman AI long before we have neural interfaces.<p>And at that point it&#x27;s game over for homo sapiens.
评论 #15873808 未加载
评论 #15872115 未加载
teejover 7 years ago
I’m all for being forward-thinking but this is a little out there.
评论 #15871789 未加载
kolbeover 7 years ago
&gt;Double exponential functions get away from you fast.<p>Still exponential, though.<p>Also, as a general criticism, there&#x27;s a big difference between people getting addicted to the internet, getting dumbed down by it and sucked into things like a youtube hole, and my idea of The Merge. The things you describe sound more like an automated soap opera or opiate addiction than the singularity.
jderickover 7 years ago
It seems unlikely we will have any sort of effective governance for this (look at our current political system). At some point someone will invent AI that lets them gain an extreme advantage of some kind (financial, political or military). This accelerates current inequality and leads to revolution. Post revolution a new AI is created to manage earths resources for the benefit of all. Whatever AI is created will be flawed somehow and will eventually cause great damage to the human race. Alternative AIs will be created to improve or combat the incumbent AI and a sort of evolution of AIs will occur. Although AIs originally were created to optimize for the human race, survival of the fittest leads to AIs exploiting loopholes in their objective functions to find ways to replicate and hoard resources for their own survival. Humans will still be accomodated to some degree, but in more and more unnatural and distorted ways.
评论 #15872583 未加载
GuiAover 7 years ago
<i>&gt; It is a failure of human imagination and human arrogance to assume that we will never build things smarter than ourselves.</i><p>If you define intelligence as “being really good at chess” or “factoring prime numbers”, sure, computers are already smarter than us. If you define intelligence as “knowing when to let your child make mistakes on their own and when to help them”, or “knowing how to conduct an orchestra”, it doesn’t seem so extreme anymore.<p>In fact, the opposite statement rings just as true:<p><i>It is a paragon of human arrogance to assume that we will build things smarter than ourselves in every conceivable way.</i><p>The road ahead looks more like a planet with its ecosystems ravaged by resource extraction, with buggy computerized systems we don’t understand running people’s lives in harmful ways (eg see all the writeups about machine learning reinforcing systemic biases) than a world full of meta humans in symbiosis with inconceivably intelligent machines of their own design.
评论 #15873606 未加载
golergkaover 7 years ago
&gt; If two different species both want the same thing and only one can have it—in this case, to be the dominant species on the planet and beyond—they are going to have conflict.<p>The term &quot;dominant species&quot; really jumped at me as I was reading this piece. It&#x27;s so fantastically vague that it begs the question - would us and AI have the same definition for what &quot;dominant&quot; is?<p>We&#x27;re not building AI individuals with self-preservation instinct, hunger for resources and sexual drive. We&#x27;re building super-individual systems like Google, Facebook and trading systems, that can be much more intelligent than we are but also have vastly different built-in &quot;purposes&quot; (just as evolution have &quot;built-in&quot; purpose of eating, having sex and caring for our family into us).<p>I think that in the end, the thing we&#x27;re building will end up much closer to Solaris ocean than Terminator.
评论 #15873062 未加载
coding123over 7 years ago
Most people in their prime today will say no to implants. I suspect that 2% may be ok with it. Each generation however will have a higher and higher percentage OK with it. Especially considering at a certain point it will be the competitive advantage to merge oneself to tech. Similar to developers taking derivatives of speed today.<p>When would this start? Probably not limited to the pace of AI but the pace of human computer interfaces catching up. I suspect the largest increase of usage will be the non-invasive helmet electro-magnetic style that is already proven to work to some degree.<p>Generally too, HCI can help us create a massive amount of training data.
评论 #15873571 未加载
mnm1over 7 years ago
Maybe the reason the whole world isn&#x27;t getting behind this is because the proponents of such theories have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that this is happening. At least it&#x27;s interesting science fiction, but it&#x27;s quite delusional to think people will get behind this considering the sorry state of &quot;AI&quot; at the moment. When the rest of us look at &quot;AI&quot; we don&#x27;t see a single shred of intelligence because it doesn&#x27;t exist. How about at least a prototype? But no, &quot;AI&quot; proponents don&#x27;t even have that. And please, hold your arguments about how self driving cars are intelligent; self driving does not equal intelligence. Anyway, there are much better articles and arguments than I can make on the subject, many of which show up here on hn quite frequently. I personally will definitely take this &quot;merge&quot; seriously once we have even a hint of proof that we can create intelligence at all, let alone intelligence greater than ourselves. Currently there is zero proof anyone has ever created anything intelligent in the sense that the word &quot;intelligent&quot; is generally applied to humans. The technology is about as far along as technology to teleport star trek style: not at all.
njarboeover 7 years ago
Advancement in nuclear technologies was basically shut down since the 1970&#x27;s. Thiel&#x27;s thesis is that almost no technological progress has occurred since then. I tend to agree. Computer technologies were only allowed to progress so quickly because people did not think computers were dangerous. Imagine any other new product where you could state that the product is &quot;as is&quot; and claim no responsibility for its functionality, purpose for use, or damage caused by malfunction. I would prefer this concept for most things but our &quot;safety first&quot; society definitely does not.<p>The one avenue open to tech advancement became so powerful that it eventually began to bleed into the physical world and we are starting to see other tech slowly advancing again. Maybe if the tech wealthy of Gen X and later have sufficient power in society after the Boomers pass the baton (if they ever do), we will let the technology keep advancing and see this merging. There is also the fact that the US is no longer a hegemon. Good luck stopping people in China from doing things banned in the West.
评论 #15872209 未加载
评论 #15872173 未加载
评论 #15874072 未加载
pdogover 7 years ago
What does a rapidly improving AI have to gain by &quot;merging&quot; with our notoriously error-prone, finicky biological hardware? It&#x27;s nearly certain that intelligent machines will choose to replace humans, not enhance them.<p>Our &quot;successful&quot; descendants will probably be the unmerged, low-tech survivors living on the outskirts of a new &quot;Machine Age&quot; civilization.
评论 #15872040 未加载
评论 #15871941 未加载
评论 #15872263 未加载
评论 #15871907 未加载
norswapover 7 years ago
I&#x27;m still skeptical about super-human-intelligence AI, now or within a few decades.<p>There just doesn&#x27;t seem to be any evidence for this kind of development. In fact the only differences to 10 or 20 years ago, when people weren&#x27;t bullish on this nonsense (my opinion) is that we have much more compute power now, and good results with deep learning. Deep learning is &quot;just&quot; (the quotes are big here) a search for a function that approximates a process of interest.<p>We are miles (more like multiple earth-circumferences) away from anything approaching general intelligence. And if that&#x27;s not what is meant, then AI is already super-human in some domain of interests. But then it already was decades ago.<p>Of course, we&#x27;ll keep getting increasingly incomprehensible and useful algorithms, although I believe we already reaped the low-hanging fruits and we are not going to 10x what we have now.<p>If I may venture a wild guess, progress towards general intelligence might come from learning more about our own cognition.
评论 #15875581 未加载
soundsover 7 years ago
Sam wants to talk about the utility function of a superhuman AI. Ok, what are the likely outcomes?<p>(For sake of discussion, let&#x27;s just accept that a superhuman AI will exist soon.)<p>Asimov&#x27;s &quot;Three Laws&quot; point out that a utility function is just a program like any other program. It has no inherent moral code. If it prefers &quot;the good of mankind,&quot; it is because the engineers made it so.<p>How long until someone makes one that actively destroys mankind?<p>Sam seems to accept that a single superhuman hostile AI is an extinction-level event. Friendly AIs are non-events, but a hostile AI is an existential threat.<p>There are counter-arguments: humans are resilient; our monoculture hasn&#x27;t wiped out all avenues of escape; governments are still human-dominated and unlikely to surrender to AI control.<p>I haven&#x27;t decided yet, but I am convinced there are concrete actions _right_ _now_ that have a strong effect on the outcome.<p>The real contest, though, is that humans just don&#x27;t care, and AIs are tireless, flawless machines.
aaavl2821over 7 years ago
&quot;the merge&quot; may or may not happen in our lifetimes. current AI tech has a ceiling, even if we havent hit it yet. that ceiling may be AGI, it may not, who knows<p>The bigger question, if we want to make human life better, is: should we worry about AGI more than other things?<p>One can argue that if people want to help their fellow humans, theyd get the most value for their time, say, volunteering with the many 8th graders in east palo alto who can&#x27;t even spell their first name, rather than trying to prevent an AI apocalypse that they cant even predict with any degree of accuracy<p>I think it is good and important that people develop AI responsibly and think about these things, but does this topic really deserve more public attention than the many other threats and challenges that humanity faces?<p>I know sam and elon and others are very smart and have large megaphones, but we should certainly question their priorities
tw1010over 7 years ago
Sorry if this is more negative than HN permits, but am I the only one who gets the feeling that the style of this post sounds kind of smug? Ending a paragraph with &quot;And gradual processes are hard to notice&quot; and an invisible smirk kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
评论 #15872550 未加载
评论 #15875712 未加载
codingdaveover 7 years ago
&gt; Our phones control us and tell us what to do when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.<p>All of this is only true is you let it be true. And if that is a basis for thinking we are moving into the singularity, then there is an echo chamber informing that conclusion. There are plenty of people who do not live their life via devices or social media. There are also plenty of youth rejecting those choices. But, almost by definition, you aren&#x27;t hearing from those people online.<p>If anything, there is a voluntary split going on between those who are embracing tech as a central core of their life and those who reject it. And a subset of people like myself who make their living at it, then go to a home without it.
评论 #15875245 未加载
eqmviiover 7 years ago
Was there this much hand-wringing during previous AI boom&#x2F;bust cycles? There&#x27;s a lot of fear and emotion swirling around AI&#x2F;machine learning right now, and I&#x27;m curious if that&#x27;s been the case in the past as well.
评论 #15871939 未加载
tramGGover 7 years ago
I&#x27;m super pro singularity. I&#x27;ve been watching what I think will be the key to that next step of growth: Decentralized AI.<p>Using the blockchain for decentralized access to distributed machine learning models and creating a heterogenous network of autonomous agents that can collaborate, learn, and grow will be huge. One of the companies I see doing that right now is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;synapse.ai&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;synapse.ai&#x2F;</a> and it&#x27;s pretty epic if you dig into their yellow paper.<p>When we start building a global brain where everyone can contribute, then we&#x27;ll really start seeing what the future can hold.
PaulHouleover 7 years ago
With all due respect.<p>You would feel better (particularly in regards to the emotions you describe at the end), Sam, if you put yourself on a &quot;information diet&quot;.
评论 #15871863 未加载
评论 #15871815 未加载
nathasover 7 years ago
As a human, you can imagine the existence of a color you&#x27;ve never seen. However, it&#x27;s greater than what you are able to perceive as a human. We can only see our slice of the spectrum. Therefore it&#x27;s impossible to describe or create that color.<p>As far as I&#x27;m concerned, this is the same with AI.<p>You can imagine an AI that is smarter, bigger, more capable than humanity, but realistically we can&#x27;t describe that.<p>We can&#x27;t create something that is greater than our own limitations, the same way we can&#x27;t create a color that we can&#x27;t perceive.<p>Humanity is bound by it&#x27;s own intellect, so any AI could only ever be as smart as we are.
评论 #15873755 未加载
评论 #15873684 未加载
评论 #15873696 未加载
tschellenbachover 7 years ago
What we call AI is very good at pattern recognition. I haven&#x27;t seen examples yet though of AI learning quickly. It can teach itself how to play chess, but it takes a very large number of attempts before it becomes good. The rate of learning for a human is still much faster than for an AI. (We just hit a plateau faster). I&#x27;d put my money on a child that has played 10 games of chess vs a computer that&#x27;s learning from scratch and has played 10 games. I wonder if there have been any studies on trying to speed up the pace of learning for AI.
评论 #15872392 未加载
评论 #15872957 未加载
TelmoMenezesover 7 years ago
Independently of the time frames, I also believe that the merge is our specie&#x27;s only hope for survival.<p>With apologies in advance for the self-promotion, here&#x27;s a paper where I present my arguments for alternative scenarios:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1609.02009" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1609.02009</a><p>In short, I argue that non-evolutionary superintelligences are not stable (they eventually go inert), while evolutionary superintelligences are a very serious existential threat to our species.
theandrewbaileyover 7 years ago
&gt; I believe the merge has already started, and we are a few years in. Our phones control us and tell us what to do when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.<p>I think this is a misunderstanding about human nature. Humans are thinking and feeling beings who are responsible to others. They are only slaves and automatons if they choose to; most aren&#x27;t. Many who are have hints and feelings that what they are doing is unnatural.
评论 #15872979 未加载
jancsikaover 7 years ago
&gt; The algorithms that make all this happen are no longer understood by any one person.<p>I smell epicism.<p>How did it become chic for women to smoke cigarettes back in the first quarter of the 20th century?
dibujanteover 7 years ago
&gt; I believe the merge has already started, and we are a few years in. Our phones control us and tell us what to do when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.<p>Wishful thinking.<p>And you can&#x27;t just go appealing to complexity, either. Economies are too complex for any actor to understand; we haven&#x27;t lost our individuation.
aidosover 7 years ago
I enjoyed reading Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (by Yuval Noah Harari) this year which focuses on this subject.
superbaconmanover 7 years ago
I feel like we&#x27;ll be lucky if we can even get artificial hearts by 2025 that don&#x27;t significantly increase the risk of stroke. The various tech seems to be around, but I don&#x27;t know if the experience to combine it all does.
gueloover 7 years ago
The real unstoppable algorithm is capitalism. Capitalism is funding the exponential advancements in AI at Google, Facebook and other places. But it does so for capitalism&#x27;s purpose, the algorithms get better at grabbing our attention because attention=profit. Profit is the only goal that capitalism optimizes for. The only reason that AI will ever start destroying humans is if there&#x27;s a profit motive. Which might very well happen at some point, but we should focus on the real motivation not the tools it uses. Capitalism won&#x27;t give up powerful profit tools very easily. Sam&#x27;s hope for worldwide coordination has not worked against climate change, capitalism sensed that threat and started attacking our political systems and propaganda channels and so far it has won that battle handily.
golemotronover 7 years ago
I&#x27;m disturbed by the fact that many people in SV just say &quot;oh well, nothing we can do&quot; when discussing technology while implying the exact opposite when addressing human nature.
Balgairover 7 years ago
&gt;...and brain-machine interfaces are going to happen<p>&gt; Most guesses seem to be between 2025 and 2075.<p>No way.<p>Disseroth is on a fast-trak to win a solo(!) Nobel for opto-genetics and Clarity, sure, but we are at <i>least</i> a century away from a wet-ware interface, if they are possible at all. The BRAIN initiative was effectively a failure (many reasons here) and the Connectome projects are essentially coming up with &#x27;brains be different, yo&#x27;. Hell, we just discovered that the immune system is in the brain at all, like 3 years ago. We have not idea how many astrocytes and glia are in your brain (50% or 90%?) or how they are regulating synapses (maybe they are the primary regulators). What the hell are vestigial cilia even doing in the brain anyways? The list continues for miles of .pdfs.<p>Repair of neurons would be a necessary step for wet-ware, and still we have a damnable time trying to get people to dump ice-water on their heads as their father is dying. We are <i>decades</i> away from a cursory understanding of a wet-ware interface that won&#x27;t just glia-up in a year or put you on drugs for life and at a 10,000x risk for strokes. We know electrodes don&#x27;t work in the brain and the drug cocktails don&#x27;t either.<p>Opto-genetics is a <i>great</i> discovery (use light, not electrodes) for interfacing, but the damn Abbe&#x27; diffraction limit (a huge physics limitation) screws you. ~125,000 um^2 of light at the focus versus a 25 um^2 neuron&#x27;s soma. Maybe, yeah, for peripheral nerves where you can &#x27;multiplex&#x27; along the length of a long fiber bundle, you can get away with a wet-ware interface. But cortical? Not gonna happen. You can use STED techniques, but you&#x27;ll cook the brain to get the resolution down first. Opto is good only for applications where you aren&#x27;t limited by Abbe&#x27;, that&#x27;s not the cortical areas.<p>&gt; We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants<p>Maaaybe. However, what is a &#x27;family&#x27; then? Your kids may not look or &#x27;be&#x27; anything like you. All the families that will have done so will essentially have adopted a child, as far as the genes go. Plus, that kid will be &#x27;whicked smahrt&#x27; if I&#x27;m reading this correctly. Not a lot of people do that even today, for many reasons. How will the kids think of their &#x27;dumber&#x27; parents? Will they be &#x27;parents&#x27; to them, or more like the cat, but with an inheritance? I think the initial forays are key here, and those forays will not be happening in 1st world countries, but much more &#x27;familial&#x27; based ones like Korea and China. Places where the distortion of the family will be even more &#x27;cutting&#x27; to the societal fabric.
le-markover 7 years ago
<i>I believe the merge has already started, and we are a few years in. Our phones control us and tell us what to do when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.</i><p>Someone needs to take a vacation from their devices, it seems. I feel like this overstates and dramatizes the situation to a large degree.
ulyssesgrantover 7 years ago
can anyone recommend a sci-fi book that investigates this line of thought (what happens when AI can learn without human intervention, for benefit and detriment of society)?
brandon272over 7 years ago
What are some current examples of exponential AI advancement?
acoleman616over 7 years ago
It&#x27;s Elon&#x27;s biggest fear for very good reasons...