AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

[Mark Kohut]

WE have to program them to not go beyond their remit, he shouts
hysterically,
 in tears, while rolling on the floor laughing like a madman.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:22 AM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Arthur's on the money. I was an AI skeptic like David for a long time,
> until I learned the current prevailing method of development:
> essentially pitting two AI against one another, each trying to
> convince the other that it is "real", although the criteria for that
> will vary. And each learns from the other's failures, and does a bit
> better, and so on and so on in a reciprocal manner that is only
> limited by the computing power and electricity. So yes, DM, they're
> already talking among themselves, so to speak. But they can have
> centuries of conversations in seconds.
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:00 PM Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > There is an old religious/philosophical question, originally from old
> Jewish theology I think: if God is all-powerful, can he create something
> greater than Himself? Applied to AI, this question describes what Ray
> Kurzweil calls The Singularity. One has only to look at AlphaGO to see
> this. The original AlphaGO soundly thumped the world's best GO player,
> after having taught itself to play the game in two weeks, playing against
> itself. It successor, AlphaGO Zero, played a 100-game match against its
> progenitor, with a result of 100 games to zero.
> > One can generalize this phenomenon: an AI will design and build its own
> successor, and once that happens, further growth will proceed
> exponentially. Kurzweil defined The Singularity as the moment when AI
> becomes smarter than its creators. Once that happens -- and I (and others)
> believe it surely will, then all bets, and all considerations about our
> well-being, are off.
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:27 AM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think what the article makes clear is that what "we" want from AI
> >> doesn't matter - as far as I know nobody on the P-list is leading that
> >> charge, but certain people are and we shouldn't talk about the
> >> "progress" or "evolution" of a particular technology as if it's
> >> ahistorical and inevitable.
> >>
> >> A practical example: there's a lot of talk about the ethics of
> >> automated cars, and what their algorithms should take into account
> >> when deciding who dies in a crash. From all I've read/heard the
> >> discussion comes down to utilitarian ethics, and what would be the
> >> greater good in such a situation. But utilitarian ethics treats people
> >> as mathematical variables and is far from the only ethical model that
> >> could be applied, but it's the model that makes most sense from a
> >> programming standpoint, and perhaps the standpoint of a legal
> >> corporation trying to cover its posterior.
> >>
> >> Maybe the problem in AI thinking like a corporation is that
> >> corporations are very good at a lot of things (perpetuating their own
> >> survival, decentralised functioning, reorganising themselves to adapt
> >> to challenges, reducing individual culpability) but not so good at
> >> others (pretty much everything covered in the history of ethics).
> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Does anyone think AI would be better with a chaos quotient?  I don't
> think so.  So Predictable Intelligence is our real goal. We want *smart*
> servants, not intelligence.  So, of course predictable AI will support
> corporate structures.
> >> >
> >> > it seems to me that AI is essentially imitative, not creative, not
> spontaneous.  It isn't really intelligent. We don't want it to talk back or
> even question us.  We won't ever tolerate that.
> >> >
> >> > David Morris
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:47 PM Ian Livingston <
> igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep. Chiming in with gratitude, Rick. Thanks.
> >> >> My answer to the concluding question is pending, though I tend
> toward the
> >> >> latter proposition.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:58 PM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Thanks Rich, great read.
> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:41 AM bulb <bulb at vheissu.net> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Really excellent article, thank you Rich.  Working for a company
> that is
> >> >> > making massive investments in AI - this puts things in
> perspective..
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > From: Pynchon-l <pynchon-l-bounces at waste.org> On Behalf Of rich
> >> >> > > Sent: dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:45
> >> >> > > To: “pynchon-l at waste.org“ <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >> >> > > Subject: AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > thought you guys would be interested
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/11/26/ai-thinks-like-a-corporation-and-thats-worrying
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > like everything else these days we're dazzled by the science not
> knowing
> >> >> > or caring about context, origins
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > and this
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >> >> >
> >> >> --
> >> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >> --
> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Arthur
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>