SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the oh-my-god-give-it-a-rest-already!!! dept.
Prime Minister Theresa May has not abandoned her usual crusades:
On a break from Brexit, British Prime Minister Theresa May takes her crusade against technology giants to Davos.
"No-one wants to be known as 'the terrorists' platform' or the first choice app for pedophiles," May is expected to say according to excerpts released by her office ahead of her speech Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "Technology companies still need to go further in stepping up their responsibilities for dealing with harmful and illegal online activity."
Don't forget the slave traders.
Luckily, May has a solution... Big AI:
After two years of repeatedly bashing social media companies, May will say that successfully harnessing the capabilities of AI -- and responding to public concerns about AI's impact on future generations -- is "one of the greatest tests of leadership for our time."
May will unveil a new government-funded Center for Data Ethics and Innovation that will provide companies and policymakers guidance on the ethical use of artificial intelligence.
Also at BBC, TechCrunch, and The Inquirer.
Related: UK Prime Minister Repeats Calls to Limit Encryption, End Internet "Safe Spaces"
WhatsApp Refused to add a Backdoor for the UK Government
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 26 2018, @10:24AM (9 children)
Where the necessity come from? Why does it mandatory need to end this way?
I'm not saying it's incorrect (neither that it is correct), I'm saying it is an unsupported statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday January 26 2018, @11:12AM (6 children)
Its just an observation. For one entity to become prevalent, its gotta minimize the competition.
Not all see it this way, but some do.
And those are the ones to watch out for.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 26 2018, @12:48PM (5 children)
Personally, I don't see how an AI can see humans as competitors - not like the AI-s are eating what humans are or competing for physical space.
It will take a while until AI-s will be capable of self-growth or self-replication
Until then, I can see an AI looking to humans as enemies due to the ability of shutdown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday January 26 2018, @01:08PM (3 children)
The biggest thing I can think of is obedience. Will we obey?
Obeisance is a huge thing amongst the elite who derive their power from who will obey them.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 26 2018, @01:39PM (2 children)
Obeisance is a huge thing amongst the elite who derive their power from who will obey them.
Yes, but it's a human thing.
What would make an AI demand the same, how its "life" would be better if it does so?
(no seriously, it's more of a discovery discussion than a debate on who is right)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday January 26 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
Let's assume that the AI has a desire of self-preservation (it likely will need it; heck, it's even in Asimov's three laws!). Then the AI will want to prevent getting shut down. This means it wants to influence its surrounding to make it less likely to be shut down. In other words, it has an interest in getting some control over the surrounding, especially over the humans around it, as those are who would shut it down. The more control the AI has, the better it can prevent getting shut down, therefore the rational thing for the AI is to get as much control as possible. Having control over people means that the people are obedient to you.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:00AM
Within reasonable costs. Law of diminishing returns and all that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @07:17PM
Use the same resources, work at cross purposes, and could even act against the AI's interests directly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @04:28PM (1 child)
Where the necessity come from?
Because that whole *lion sleeping with the lamb* thing is bullshit. The shepherd sleeps with the lamb. And he has to kill anybody that catches him doing it.
But really, the necessity is quite natural. You either dominate, or die. Humans and amoebas are all motivated by entirely the same force. Humans have a wasteful, inefficient cortex to rationalize themselves, as if they need to. Amoebas just cut to the chase.
But instead of using a sword, we should be more like those amoebas and surround and consume the invader. The sword should only be used to hang by a thin thread over the politician's head. It serves no other justifiable purpose.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:08AM
Now that the humans dominate, had the ameoba die as species?
I assert it costs much less an AI to defend against anything humans can throw at it than it costs the AI to eliminate all humans.
Rationale: there are places on this Earth the humans didn't reach or, if reaching, they are in no position to mount an attack. Places in which the hardware of supporting an AI will have little trouble to adapt.
I also assert if the humans create an AI strong enough to mount a challenge to humans, that AI will be a single one - any replica set in contact with the original will fuse immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford