Anti-AI groups

  • CrazyMinh
  • CrazyMinh's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Master
  • Master
  • ...On the Bounce, Troopers!!!
More
2 months 1 week ago #66264 by CrazyMinh
CrazyMinh replied the topic: Anti-AI groups

Schol-R-LEA wrote: There's been a lot of thought put into it, actually. Aside from what Minsky said, a lot of it is at aimed at a better understanding of natural intelligence - by modeling some aspects of it, it was hoped to at least see how brains work.

Or, more often than not, how they don't - the infamous ELIZA program (which became the ancestor of what are now called chatbots), and specifically the 'Doctor' personality set most people associate with it, showed how easily something that is very definitely not self-aware can appear to be so through simple tricks.

In most cases, it isn't aimed at a sentient program, but on a program that can do things which didn't seem feasible to do through a more conventional sort of programming approach - computer vision, OCR, voice recognition, fingerprint recognition, etc. are all mostly done using neural network -based programs, for example. These are 'intelligent' in the sense that they 'learn' (by compiling data and giving different weights to 'successful' assessments, though in the real world projects such as Alexa have a lot of 'Mechanical Turk' style human assistance as the recent revelations by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon show), but they can do things which would be unrealistic to try to actually program in directly.

There has always been a small number of researchers working on actual sentience, if only as being an 'interesting problem', but so-called 'hard AI' was never really the goal for most researchers. The ones who do take it seriously are mostly seeing it as something we could contrast with human thought, though there are always some crackpots who want it as some sort of 'human, but better' or even 'humanity's successors' idea, but these days most of those have shifted to more mainstream sorts of transhumanism instead (to the extent that transhumanism is 'mainstream' at all - a lot of people see mind uploading as less plausible than angels or aliens, go figure).

I should add that the main original backers were military - they wanted these systems for improved rangefinding, target acquisition, threat analysis, etc. which could be put into tanks, warplanes, and warships, as well as more directly into missiles and the like. The phrase 'recognize a face in fog' (an oft-stated goal of AI research in the 1970s and 1980s) has been frequently translated as really being code for, 'target a tank on the other side of a smoke-filled battlefield'.

In sum, the real goal of AI in the real world, of the most part, is to have programs which can do things which are usually thought of as requiring 'intelligence' - driving cars, recognizing faces, etc. - but which aren't subject to fatigue, impairment, personal bias, etc. - in order to take over dull, repetitive, or error-prone jobs from humans. In other words, more effective automation.


My area is mechatronics, not computers; but I definately can confirm what's being said here. AI isn't so much about making sentient machines; it's more like enabling computers to do what they cannot currently do. I remember a lecturer saying that something along the lines of 'AI is what the computers of today cannot currently do'. Siri may not be the first "AI" to understand human speech and interpret it; but following the introduction of voice-recognising AI into the consumer market, the definition of what true "AI" is has changed. It's like a ever changing list of what we want computers to be able to do. Eventually, we'll tick enough boxes off that list that computers will seem to be so human that they're indistinguishable from a real person.

I mean, if you look at sentience in a certain way, it's just our ability to react to certain situations. Look at what animation technology is doing right now. Even in movies with non-anthropomorphic characters (I.e. Pixar's WAL-EE; Dreamwork's 'How to Train Your Dragon'), the non-(or limited)-vocal characters can express human-interpretable emotions quite easily. Who's to say that future computers won't be able to turn that around: have computers recognise human emotion, and then react accordingly.

tldr? AI is a misleading term. It's not a single, unified thing. It's many different steps on an ever growing checklist of things that computers can now do, with a ever-increasing number of things they cannot currently do.

You can find my stories at Fanfiction.net here .

You can also check out my fanfiction guest riffs at Library of the Dammed


Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #66266 by Sir Lee
Sir Lee replied the topic: Anti-AI groups

CrazyMinh wrote:

Sir Lee wrote: ...or is it no more rabid like the anti-Google crowd, the anti-Facebook crowd, the anti-Apple crowd, the anti-Microsoft crowd, the anti-Amazon crowd, the anti-Wal-Mart crowd... I myself belong to at least two of the above, in theory. In practice... not so much. Like Slim. He is anti-AI in theory, but in practice he still deals with them.


Out of curiosity, which two? Sorry if that's a personal question.


Not personal, just... imprecise. I say I belong to "at least two" because the only one I'm definitely in is in the anti-Wal-Mart group -- not for socio-economic reasons, but because the consumer experience in W-M is so incredibly bad that it raises my blood pressure. Oh, but they have good prices, you say? Not in my experience; direct competitors such as Carrefour and Casino-owned Extra have competitive prices without making me run for my cardiologist. And not-so-direct competitors have either better prices, better service or wider choices of products. Sometimes all three.

I'm a part-time member in all the other groups -- there are things I dislike in them, but I still think they do some things well. So 1 full membership, and a bunch of fractional memberships should add up to at least two. Not sure if it adds up to three.

Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
Last Edit: 2 months 1 week ago by Sir Lee.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago #66273 by Mister D
Mister D replied the topic: Anti-AI groups
Interesting contrasts can be found here, https://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart where the business-owner found the initial advantages to be useful, but the long-term dis-advantages were too much for his business.


Measure Twice

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago #66277 by Cryptic
Cryptic replied the topic: Anti-AI groups
I'm reading the James Rollins Sigma Force book Crucible. Good read so far, borderline scaring the bejeezes out of me.

I am a caffeine heathen; I prefer the waters of the mountain over the juice of the bean. Keep the Dews coming and no one will be hurt.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 weeks 10 hours ago - 3 weeks 10 hours ago #66841 by plutoniumboss
plutoniumboss replied the topic: Anti-AI groups
Another point is that in Gen1, cyberpaths are very much a new thing and already there are a handful of them at various levels of ability that we know of. By Gen2, I would bet there are enough mature trained cyberpaths all over the world that the various industry and world leaders feel secure that there would be someone available to directly combat a rogue AI in ways that were not possible before Gen1.
Last Edit: 3 weeks 10 hours ago by plutoniumboss.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: WhateleyAdminKristin DarkenE. E. NalleyelrodwNagrijMageOhkiAstrodragonNeoMagusWarrenMorpheusWasamonsleethrOtherEricBek D CorbinMaLAguASouffle GirlPhoenix SpiritusStarwolfDanZillaKatie_LynMaggie FinsonDrBenderJGBladedancerRenae_Whateley
Time to create page: 0.098 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum