Looming global arms race to create superintelligent AI

[Kemaiku]

It is less complicated really, gaming NPC's today have quite a lot of complex programming, and multiple ones depending on how many different kinds there are in any one game, leading to a bulk of the code of the final product in some cases.

And yet they'll still do incredibly stupid things and show no real interest in their own survival.

 

[RAMA]

You heard it here first: RAMA knows better than actual AI researchers.

Dunning-Kruger in full force here.

Obviously this is not what I said. But I have described what happens before on these threads..

While there are a greater number of researchers than ever who agree with the Singularity or at least with accelerated change, there are many who still adhere to the conventional, linear view (despite the evidence to the contrary) mainly because they are so close to the problem. They often see the steps involved and the complexity rather than the overall picture(can't see the forest for the trees as it were). There are some good, in depth articles online about this phenomenon.

You heard it here first: RAMA knows better than actual AI researchers.

Dunning-Kruger in full force here.

Fanatical devotion to an insane ideal will do that.

And as usual your comments are completely useless.

 

[RAMA]

Neither is the new link either.

Seriously, a program that can follow numbers, then execute one command based on it being high enough.

That's nowhere near intelligent nevermind anything remotely sentient.

Lots of real experts disagree with you.

Lots of "real experts" disagree with the statement that "a program that can follow numbers then execute one command based on [the number] being high enough" is "nowhere near intelligent nevermind anything remotely sentient?"

That is a VERY specific claim on your part; would you care to double down?


Really? The previous paragraph claimed that the experts disagreed with this very statement. Now you're saying this is the "conventional view?"

It is as if you are using the word "experts" to refer to people who don't know what the hell they're talking about (Kurzweil et al) and "conventional wisdom" to refer to people who do.

even a good number of those in the field see it that way still

"Nearly all of them" is a good number, yes.

but as we know that's not how it works

You have a mouse in your pocket? Who is "we"?

"Conventional view" outside the field, most people in general see things either linearly or in a limited view, generally because of limited lifespans, limited experience.

Inside the field, there are far fewer who see it conventionally, in fact, the best, brightest, most imaginative don't see it conventionally at all.

"We" being collective humanity, or more closely the experts who now know accelerated change is proven and fact and have spread this message.

RAMA

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Conventional view" outside the field

YOU are outside the field and you do not share this view.

Several people in this thread, including myself, ARE in the field and not only share this view but are aware that most people actually working in AI research and information technology in general hold to what you would consider the "conventional view."

Does it not bother you that none of the major proponents of the Singularity Religion are themselves AI researchers?

Inside the field, there are far fewer who see it conventionally, in fact, the best, brightest, most imaginative don't see it conventionally at all.

But the "brightest and most imaginative" you keep citing aren't doing any ACTUAL WORK in the field.

It seems like the exact opposite is true: it's much easier to imagine possibilities based on a LACK of knowledge than a preponderance of it. This is, in fact, one of the most obvious features of science fiction: "hard" science fiction that is based more solidly on what is and isn't possible in the real world tends to be much less fanciful and much less far reaching than soft science fiction that is based only on a loose extrapolation of what SEEMS to be possible. Thus a science fiction writer who used to work for the JPL and/or NASA will probably write about ships that use fusion torches and a reaction mass and have to accelerate to create gravity, while a writer who has no idea how spaceships actually work will write about the U.S. Navy launching a battleship into orbit using a "really advanced ion engine."

The difference in this case is the Singularity Theory has an evangelical movement growing up around it driven by a handful of people who have books to sell and need a hook. Of Ray Kurzweil was writing books about a coming breakthrough in ion drives making it possible to lift battleships into orbit, you and a quarter million other people would probably be all excited about that too.

"We" being collective humanity, or more closely the experts...

You DO realize you're not an expert, right?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

"We" being collective humanity, or more closely the experts...

You DO realize you're not an expert, right?

I'm pretty sure he knows that. His mistake is believing the people he listens to are. Virtually all the Singularity proponents are not AI researchers or computer scientists.

I would say it's a bit like taking climate science advice from people who aren't climatologists. And let's say these non-climatologists claim there's no such thing as anthropogenic global warming.

Does RAMA listen to them, too, as long as they have a slick PR package?