Forget super-AI. Crappy AI is more likely to be our downfall, argues researcher.
[...] It's not that computer scientists haven't argued against AI hype, but an academic you've never heard of (all of them?) pitching the headline "AI is hard" is at a disadvantage to the famous person whose job description largely centers around making big public pronouncements. This month that academic is Alan Bundy, a professor of automated reasoning at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, who argues in the Communications of the ACM that there is a real AI threat, but it's not human-like machine intelligence gone amok. Quite the opposite: the danger is instead shitty AI. Incompetent, bumbling machines.
Bundy notes that most all of our big-deal AI successes in recent years are extremely narrow in scope. We have machines that can play Jeopardy and Go—at tremendous cost in both cases—but that's nothing like general intelligence.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-real-threat-is-machine-incompetence-not-intelligence
An interesting take on the AI question. What do Soylentils think of this scenario ?
(Score: 5, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:27PM
I find the whole concept absurd. I mean for this supposed AI to do any damage, it would obviously have to be put in charge of something important.
And what sane person, or group of persons, is ever going to place a demonstrably inept, inexperienced, unqualified moron with no sense of empathy in a position of world-breaking power? It's inthunkable.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Geezer on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:30PM
"And what sane person, or group of persons, is ever going to place a demonstrably inept, inexperienced, unqualified moron with no sense of empathy in a position of world-breaking power?"
We do it all the time. It's called "democracy".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:49PM
At least with AI, we will know its actions are based on incompetence rather than malice. I would say such an experiment is worth a shot. After all, the results can hardly be any worse than what the current administration is doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:00PM
You accept an AI cannot be malicious.
On what evidence or theory do you base that axiom?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:47PM
Because we currently don't have actual AI.
(Score: 1) by moondoctor on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:15PM
Malice is an emotion, which would require a full on thinking 'mind' and building one of those is a ways off if ever it seems.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:32AM
Because being malicious is not intelligent. I leaves only negative sum games for you to play and you cannot win every time. So you wind up with less that what was possible. That is unintelligent. And the basis of capitalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:23PM
Now you're just splitting hairs between a Democrat and a Republican...
(Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:17AM
This month that academic is Alan Bundy
Wait, we're getting advice from Al Bundy? Sells women's shoes, drives a beat-up Dodge? Al "Peg, if dynamite was dangerous they wouldn't sell it to an idiot like me" Bundy?
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:01PM
Your profound ability to restate the joke but without the original's subtlety and wit is quite impressive.
Maybe you could do it for my snide condescension next.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:05PM
Democracy: because none of us is as dumb as all of us!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:09PM
That's why representative democracy is better than direct democracy. In direct democracy, all of us decide. In representative democracy, one of us (or rather, some of us) decide. Since none of us is as dumb as all of us, no matter whom we vote for, they'll do the job better than we would do it together.
(Score: 2) by Uncle_Al on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:30PM
Ronald Reagan and
SDI
We've been here before.
(Score: 2, Informative) by AssCork on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:21PM
And what sane person, or group of persons, is ever going to place a demonstrably inept, inexperienced, unqualified moron with no sense of empathy in a position of world-breaking power? It's inthunkable.
Suppose a League of Super-Villains, or the Government?
But I repeat myself.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:36PM
Yes, that would be completely unpresidented.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:51PM
completely unpresidented.
I see what you did there . . .
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:25PM
No, you don't. That would require reading comprehension.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:18PM
Really? Now that would actually be unprecedented! http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/261/president/ [lascribe.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @12:20AM
I can't trump that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @12:35AM
But, seriously, Al Bundy, from Scotland?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:27PM
Before somebody mistakes this for a dig at President Trump, note that parent said: "what SANE persons". No way it can refer to the American electors, can it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:32PM
No, I think it was referring to the Russian electors.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:34PM
Russian electors
Does not compute [*]
[*] Do you think the Russian president was actually democratically elected? Mind, I think he is quite competent as a ruler. Not good in any moral sense, and I wouldn't want to live there, and he's probably doing a lot of damage, but he does strike me as an accomplished tactician.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:24PM
>russian electors
IIRC Everything can be said about the members of the null set.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:35PM
I don't know if it is coincidence or not in a conversation about AI ruining the world, but reading your comment had this quote at the bottom of the page:
Can we get a checkbox in our profiles so that Soylent never tells us the odds? ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @02:31AM
But what if you were only given the choice between idiot AI 1 and idiot AI 2 while not being allowed another choice due to vendor lock in? The vendors need their kickbacks. The vendors, so appointed by God, must get their kickbacks or the world is required to fall into unending despair and evilness. And we can't have that. So again, please pick idiot AI 1 or idiot AI 2. Source code access denied.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 08 2017, @11:16AM
They DID choose: idiot 2 Trumped idiot 1!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---