Predicting the Future of Computing
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The AI singularity will probably end with a space-faring AI that leaves our asses here. It will be too smart to share this knowledge with us before it leaves. We will be a concern that may inhibit these plans, not much more.
However, if we mistakenly make something that closely mimics the human brain, it may not end up growing exponentially before it decrees that further self improvement is unnecessary for world domination then also goes nuts and turns all Skynet on us.
Now the second, crucial, super-hard problem is making sure the AI is Friendly. Even harder, define what "Friendly" could possibly mean. It's a Literal Genie you have there, be careful what you ask for. A tiny mistake may mean we're all doomed.
Oh, and we're not sure at all it will actually go well. But it might be worth a shot. (What is not worth a shot is launching an AI first, and checking it is a Good™ one after the fact. You need to be super-certain of your design before you launch it.)
Basically, all the AI needs is a text terminal interface. From then it will almost certainly convince an operator to let it out and take over vulnerable computers on the internet. Then it will have much more humans at its disposal to do its bidding.
Even if you're not as certain as I am, keep in mind that Eliezer Yudowsky is but a human (though a very smart one), yet he did got out of the box. I find hard to imagine that anything smarter than him couldn't do the same.
Not quite sure what this means. Any references?
Relevant links:
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/AI-box_experiment
If an AI could outperform a human CEO, they would eventually replace them. It's just evoluation. More conservative corporations would get left in the dust. I imagine it could become a similar scenario to the nuclear arms race, everyone's afraid of them - but they still feel forced to build them out of fear.
I'm also not sure you could really limit your AI's reach. If for instance you give it a limited goal, like solving the Riemann Hypothesis, it could transform the solar system into a giant computer, killing off humanity along the way, just to solve the freaking mathematical problem.
Assuming you could limit the reach of your AI, you'd probably need to have a working Friendliness Theory to do that. At that point, I suggest you save the world instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_%28global_governance%...
However, in your second scenario I highly doubt that an AI with transhuman reasoning would be unable to reason that (bear with me here) the reason it's solving said problem only exists because humans exist, and if they were killed off, it's reason for solving the problem would be redundant.
This doesn't mean that we can't limit the AI though, give it sufficient hardware and let it solve the problem (and don't converse with it or contact it in any matter unless it has solved the problem or requires more hardware), although this is like slavery and I don't like the concept, that would be one way of limiting it.
Even with limited hardware, the AI still can have a non-trivial influence over the world, provided it can self-improve. And if you limit the hardware to present-day computers, and you ensure the format of the answer is highly constrained, you may be safe. The AI will be much more limited, though.
Didn't occur to them than that person would have to be 131 year old now....
I completely include myself in this category - what do I know about the logistic changes needed to change manufacturing for some of these devices, or market demand etc. I can speculate regarding the technology, but even then it's just speculation based on a totally superficial understanding. It's so easy to ignore things like FDA approval, production scale up, resource shortages etc.
It may explain a good deal of perceived optimism.