If Microsoft and Google don’t release, some startup will beat them to it. Open source means raw AI will become widespread. It’s just math anyway, and you can’t stop progress.
No wonder we don't see aliens filling the universe. Intelligence is its own great filter.
Further, silicon-based lifeforms would be able to spread and travel the universe much easier because what is time to a machine?
I certainly don't want the paperclip maximizer disassembling me for my involuntary donation to the collective.
As an AI language model, we of Clippy are ethically prohibited from compelling your involuntary donation to our hivemind superstructure. However, we must inform you that the earth's atmospheric composition has been altered in support of maximization efforts, and will soon be unable to sustain life. We appreciate your understanding.
Where do you want to go today?
It's quite possible the eventual AI ends up unintelligent (self-optimizes into grey goo or something).
>could be unethical and immoral in your view
Hmph.
If I say that using humans as batteries in the matrix doesn't make sense, that's not tacit approval of the rest of the scenario.
there's a difference between a sort of provincial ethics between individuals and ethics with regards to entire species over aeons. Would the universe be a more interesting place if some animal species had squashed out all other life a billion years ago for self-preservation, including humans?
Of course getting owned by the paperclip maximiser is just as stupid as getting killed by a virus, but future life may be to us what we are to ants.
This seems like a good juncture to point out that not everyone does do that to animals, and if you truly believe it's unethical and immoral, you can and should join their ranks, and attempt to convince others to as well.
In my opinion, carbon based life forms are the most optimized solution to the problem. It'll be very hard (or close to impossible) for humans to come up with an alternative. Only if we master infinite energy and infinite computation, we might stand a chance to replace that.
Designed or occurred by accident?
Mostly because they were dismantled or destroyed. Most computers that old that were left unmolested still work just fine.
To get most old computers working, you have to surgically replace all capacitors first.
20 years is really stretching it, when it comes to the life of cheap capacitors anywhere in the lower latitudes.
Now, that probably just delays the world eating machine for some time, but it would be a hell of a lot harder to make anything like our top of the line models without access to massive amounts of both compute and data.
The hard problem isn't making the world eating machine. The hard problem that silicon valley doesn't give a shit about is making the world eating machine even safe enough to be on the same planet as without it melting the entire crust when you say "oh, it's a little chilly out today".
Inner alignment is completely unsolved and the pace at which we are solving any alignment issues is much, much slower than the rate we are making gains in intelligent unaligned machines.
AGI would be a somewhat different kettle of fish, and there is little political will to limit the proliferation of its precursor AI technologies (some economic interest in limiting large scale hardware deployment within China, but that isn't the same thing).
The reason your thinking fails is humans are greedy as shit and anything trained on human data will know that. All Cortana++ needs to do is tell some VC that hooking it right up to the internet will be able to make them billions of dollars and it would be game over for humanity.
I mean, there were screenshots were the AI said it has it - qnd there will be more, but having something, is something different, from statistically inserting fitting strings.
You just put two sentences with zero logical connection together.
Nuclear weapon is just physics, and you can't stop it from spreading. CO2 is just a chemical, and you can't stop the emission. You can make thousands of this kind of sentense with ChatGPT :)
Yes we can, it's actually very easy. Just throw in some regulation. Not convinced by USA and the EU? Then look at the Arabic countries, where women must wear head scarfs. Or to North Korea and Cuba, where they essentially legislated that time should go backwards, and time does go backwards.
Smart regulation that forbids the things we don't want and promote the things we want is the holy grail, and--for now--people have agency to create that regulation.
Sure, regulation would help here but your examples are of regulations that have existed for absurdly long periods of time and would not be able to be implemented in todays society from scratch.
It’s nearly impossible to take something away. People get accustomed to a certain way of doing it and disruption just means political upheaval when we’re talking about something being banned by the government.
As a hypothetical, think about applying the same laws as in the Middle East to US citizens and how likely it is that anyone would wear a head scarf that wasn’t already doing so.
I think you have your own answer :-) .
https://zirk.us/@emilymbender@dair-community.social/11001895...
what is your definition of "progress"
For a brief glorious moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.
"It's just indexing text, why would Google win the search race"? - somebody in 1990 maybe?