5 ms·

Almost no one who actually works or has done serious research in ML is genuinely concerned about "malevolent AI". We are so, so, so far away from anything remot

Almost no one who actually works or has done serious research in ML is genuinely concerned about "malevolent AI". We are so, so, so far away from anything remotely close to that. Please stop trying to gin up fear and listen to the experts, who uniformly agree that this is not something to be concerned about.

ikeboy 10y ago
Obligatory http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri...
crpatino 10y ago
The issue is not "malevolent AI", the probability of producing an AI with "malevolent goals" by random chance is so much more unlikely than getting any AI at all that it's not even worth it to worry about that. The problem is "any AI" whose goals are not positively aligned-with/respectul-of human society's values. In terms with Asimov's Lay of Robotics meme, the problem is not robots harming humans, but robots allowing humans to come to harm as a side effect of their actions. This is an important ethical issue that, IMHO, technologist in general are failing to address. Unethical AIs are only a special case in the sense that they are believed to be able to cause much more chaos and destruction than spammers, patent trolls or high frequency trading firms.
- KineticLensman 10y ago
  Personally think that the 'immediate' problem will be AI being used as assistants by unscrupulous humans. Imagine being targeted by semi-sentient ransomware. Edit: typos
  - e12e 10y ago
    I was going to quip something about meta-data, drone-strikes and automated targeting... but then I realized that the most likely immediate threat to life from AI is probably in trading and logistic algorithms. As in efficient privatization of water resources, to the point where those too poor to be a "good" market have to go without, or the possible drastic results of errors in such algorithms (eg: job massive loss as a result of bankruptcy). And then there's AI augmented health insurance - mundane things that might ultimately take human life - and perhaps no one will even notice.
Houshalter 10y ago
The fact they aren't concerned is exactly the problem. They should be. And in fact many are. See the SSC link posted below (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri...), or this survey (http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf). Certainly I am worried about it. There is far from "uniform agreement" that AI is safe. And appeals to authority would not comforting even if there was an authority to appeal to.
- igk 10y ago
  Couple of things 1.: I take issue with non concerned issues being dismissed as exactly one reason why people should be concerned. I dislike circular reasoning. 2.: There does not exist uniform agreement that AI is safe, in fact at least in German hacker circles quite the opposite, but as far as I see the problems that AI risk evangelists emphasize are the wrong ones. Take over the world, paperclip etc...not going to happen. For that, AI is too stupid for now. And the rapid takeoff scenarios are not realistic. But ~30% of all jobs are easily replacable by current AI technology, once the laws and the capital is lined up. AI is also making more and more decisions, legitimizing the biases with which it was either trained or programmed because it is "AI" and thus more reliable(\s). And there is a great cargo cult of "data" "science" in development (separate scare quotes intended) 3. I am starting to dislike any explicit mentions of fallacies, especially if they were used just sentences ago by the mentioner
  - tariqali34 10y ago
    I agree with you, igk. AI is a threat right now and has to be countered. Now the problem is: is there an organization dedicated to countering current AI trends through government regulations to slow down AI research and prevent AI misuse? Or are we just going to talk about it on Hacker News and German hacker meetups? Because at least OpenAI and other "AI Safety" people are attempting to try to stop this 'risk'. They may fail, but at least they can say they tried to deal with "strong AI". How about those worried about current "weak AI"? If the cargo cult spreads and we do nothing...should we get some of the blame for letting the robots proliferate? Then again. Maybe it is impossible to stop or slow down these future trends. Maybe AI is destined to eat the world, and our goal should be to save as many people as we can from the calamity.
alex_hirner 10y ago
In contrast to popular fiction, my concerns don't lie in a conspiring super AI. Rather, we should take countermeasures against suffering from a thousand cuts. Flash crashes in financial markets are a precursor to other sytemic risks ahead. Maybe this is a distinction that helps to appreciate safety for AI more.
saltvedt 10y ago
"AI: A Modern Approach (...) authors, Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, devote significant space to AI dangers and Friendly AI in section 26.3, “The Ethics and Risks of Developing Artificial Intelligence.” https://intelligence.org/2013/10/19/russell-and-norvig-on-friendly-ai/ https://intelligence.org/2013/10/19/russell-and-norvig-on-fr... In addition, there is the AI Open Letter, which is signed by many "who actually works or has done serious research in ML", including Demis Hassabis and Yann LeCun. From the letter: "We recommend expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial: our AI systems must do what we want them to do. " http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ Are the experts concerned about a "Skynet scenario"? No. But there is certainly genuine concern from the experts.
- ckrailo 10y ago
  Slight nitpick at "devote significant space"... AI: A Modern Approach is a 1000+ page book, 3.5 pages is a footnote by comparison.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
auganov 10y ago
I am actually genuinely concerned about terrorists developing killer robots. There's already designs out there for robotic turrets that can utilize commodity firearms. I even feel uncomfortable thinking of all the nasty stuff you could build.
- astanway 10y ago
  Yeah, this scenario is a million times more plausible. ML that augments human capabilities to empower bad people to do even more evil things.

ikeboy 10y ago

Obligatory http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri...

crpatino 10y ago

The issue is not "malevolent AI", the probability of producing an AI with "malevolent goals" by random chance is so much more unlikely than getting any AI at all that it's not even worth it to worry about that. The problem is "any AI" whose goals are not positively aligned-with/respectul-of human society's values. In terms with Asimov's Lay of Robotics meme, the problem is not robots harming humans, but robots allowing humans to come to harm as a side effect of their actions. This is an important ethical issue that, IMHO, technologist in general are failing to address. Unethical AIs are only a special case in the sense that they are believed to be able to cause much more chaos and destruction than spammers, patent trolls or high frequency trading firms.

KineticLensman 10y ago
Personally think that the 'immediate' problem will be AI being used as assistants by unscrupulous humans. Imagine being targeted by semi-sentient ransomware. Edit: typos
- e12e 10y ago
  I was going to quip something about meta-data, drone-strikes and automated targeting... but then I realized that the most likely immediate threat to life from AI is probably in trading and logistic algorithms. As in efficient privatization of water resources, to the point where those too poor to be a "good" market have to go without, or the possible drastic results of errors in such algorithms (eg: job massive loss as a result of bankruptcy). And then there's AI augmented health insurance - mundane things that might ultimately take human life - and perhaps no one will even notice.

Houshalter 10y ago

The fact they aren't concerned is exactly the problem. They should be. And in fact many are. See the SSC link posted below (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri...), or this survey (http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf). Certainly I am worried about it. There is far from "uniform agreement" that AI is safe. And appeals to authority would not comforting even if there was an authority to appeal to.

igk 10y ago
Couple of things 1.: I take issue with non concerned issues being dismissed as exactly one reason why people should be concerned. I dislike circular reasoning. 2.: There does not exist uniform agreement that AI is safe, in fact at least in German hacker circles quite the opposite, but as far as I see the problems that AI risk evangelists emphasize are the wrong ones. Take over the world, paperclip etc...not going to happen. For that, AI is too stupid for now. And the rapid takeoff scenarios are not realistic. But ~30% of all jobs are easily replacable by current AI technology, once the laws and the capital is lined up. AI is also making more and more decisions, legitimizing the biases with which it was either trained or programmed because it is "AI" and thus more reliable(\s). And there is a great cargo cult of "data" "science" in development (separate scare quotes intended) 3. I am starting to dislike any explicit mentions of fallacies, especially if they were used just sentences ago by the mentioner
- tariqali34 10y ago
  I agree with you, igk. AI is a threat right now and has to be countered. Now the problem is: is there an organization dedicated to countering current AI trends through government regulations to slow down AI research and prevent AI misuse? Or are we just going to talk about it on Hacker News and German hacker meetups? Because at least OpenAI and other "AI Safety" people are attempting to try to stop this 'risk'. They may fail, but at least they can say they tried to deal with "strong AI". How about those worried about current "weak AI"? If the cargo cult spreads and we do nothing...should we get some of the blame for letting the robots proliferate? Then again. Maybe it is impossible to stop or slow down these future trends. Maybe AI is destined to eat the world, and our goal should be to save as many people as we can from the calamity.

alex_hirner 10y ago

In contrast to popular fiction, my concerns don't lie in a conspiring super AI. Rather, we should take countermeasures against suffering from a thousand cuts. Flash crashes in financial markets are a precursor to other sytemic risks ahead. Maybe this is a distinction that helps to appreciate safety for AI more.

saltvedt 10y ago

"AI: A Modern Approach (...) authors, Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, devote significant space to AI dangers and Friendly AI in section 26.3, “The Ethics and Risks of Developing Artificial Intelligence.” https://intelligence.org/2013/10/19/russell-and-norvig-on-friendly-ai/ https://intelligence.org/2013/10/19/russell-and-norvig-on-fr... In addition, there is the AI Open Letter, which is signed by many "who actually works or has done serious research in ML", including Demis Hassabis and Yann LeCun. From the letter: "We recommend expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial: our AI systems must do what we want them to do. " http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ Are the experts concerned about a "Skynet scenario"? No. But there is certainly genuine concern from the experts.

ckrailo 10y ago
Slight nitpick at "devote significant space"... AI: A Modern Approach is a 1000+ page book, 3.5 pages is a footnote by comparison.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

auganov 10y ago

I am actually genuinely concerned about terrorists developing killer robots. There's already designs out there for robotic turrets that can utilize commodity firearms. I even feel uncomfortable thinking of all the nasty stuff you could build.

astanway 10y ago
Yeah, this scenario is a million times more plausible. ML that augments human capabilities to empower bad people to do even more evil things.