The White House will be holding four public discussions in order to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of artificial intelligence:
The Obama administration says it wants everyone to take a closer look at artificial intelligence with a series of public discussions.
The workshops will examine if AI will suck jobs out of the economy or add to it, how such systems can be controlled legally and technically, and whether or not such smarter computers can be used as a social good. Deputy Chief Technology Officer Ed Felton announced on Tuesday that the White House will be creating an artificial intelligence and machine learning subcomittee at the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and setting up a series of four events designed to consider both artificial intelligence and machine learning.
[...] The special events will be held between May 24 and July 7, will take place in Seattle, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, and New York.
The events come as tech industry leaders have grown increasingly alarmist about the future of AI development. Get ready for bans and FBI surveillance.
Related Stories
Elon Musk was recently interviewed at an MIT Symposium. An audience asked his views on artificial intelligence (AI). Musk turned very serious, and urged extreme caution and national or international regulation to avoid "doing something stupid" he said.
"With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon", said Musk. "In all those stories where there's the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, it's like, 'Yeah, he's sure he can control the demon.' Doesn't work out."
Read the story and see the full interview here.
Over 1,000 high-profile artificial intelligence experts and leading researchers have signed an open letter warning of a "military artificial intelligence arms race" and calling for a ban on "offensive autonomous weapons".
The letter, presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was signed by Tesla's Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Google DeepMind chief executive Demis Hassabis and professor Stephen Hawking along with 1,000 AI and robotics researchers.
The letter states: "AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of [autonomous weapons] is – practically if not legally – feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms."
So, spell it out for me, Einstein, are we looking at a Terminator future or a Matrix future?
While the latest open letter is concerned specifically with allowing lethal machines to kill without human intervention, several big names in the tech world have offered words of caution of the subject of machine intelligence in recent times. Earlier this year Microsoft's Bill Gates said he was "concerned about super intelligence," while last May physicist Stephen Hawking voiced questions over whether artificial intelligence could be controlled in the long-term. Several weeks ago a video surfaced of a drone that appeared to have been equipped to carry and fire a handgun.
takyon: Counterpoint - Musk, Hawking, Woz: Ban KILLER ROBOTS before WE ALL DIE
I saw this a few days ago, and am surprised it hasn't been linked on Soylent.
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has awarded Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates, among others, the second annual ITIF Luddite award. This is due to the tone of their warnings regarding AI during 2015. Details on CNET:
Musk "is the antithesis of a Luddite, but I do think he's giving aid and comfort to the Luddite community," said Rob Atkinson, president of the Washington, DC-based think tank. Musk, Hawking and AI experts say "this is the largest existential threat to humanity. That's not a very winning message if you want to get AI funding out of Congress to the National Science Foundation," Atkinson said.
[...] Last January, [Musk and Hawking] signed an open letter issued by the Future of Life Institute pledging that advancements in the field wouldn't grow beyond humanity's control. In July, they signed another letter urging a ban on autonomous weapons that "select and engage targets without human intervention." The Future of Life Institute researches ways to reduce the potential risks of artificial intelligence running amok. It was founded by mathematicians and computer science experts, including Jaan Tallinn, a co-founder of Skype, and MIT professor Max Tegmark.
Gates last year said he and Musk are on the same page. "I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don't understand why some people are not concerned," he said in a Reddit AskMeAnything thread.
What are the thoughts of Soylentils? Deserved? or no?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:01PM
Perhaps someday they'll study the risks of actual intelligence. Luckily, the event of something like that in the White House seems extraordinarily unlikely.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:12PM
I spent 5 minutes laying out a nice insightful post pretty much saying exactly that and yet you beat me with 1 line.
I hereby mod you insightful, using up my last mod point for the day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:02PM
It's populist crap to make you feel superior to the people who rule your lives. Not insightful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:11PM
Half of all forum posts on the Internet is basically that, and it gets liked and modded up.
What happened to working hard, planning ahead, and being flexible when circumstances change? Sorry, those are lectures we reserve for those who don't look like us.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:13PM
Intelligence is just a myth created by the Bavarian Illuminati and Mensa in order to delude the population into believing that elites are better than them and also that joining Mensa is not a tedious thing to do.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:19PM
At the conclusion of these workshops, the Administration urges Congress to ban all types of intelligence--artificial or otherwise. Widespread intelligence and reasoning is an emerging national security threat. We must stomp out this form of terrorism before it jeopardizes the American way of life. Our precious freedoms depend on preventing intelligence from becoming commonplace. The measure will pass by wide margins with bi-partition support and will bring forth many cheers of joyous triumph and thunderous applause.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathElk on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:28AM
Your theory has already happened - culminating in the election of George W. Bush.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quintessence on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:22PM
While this is laudable, my suspicion is that is more to signal to business partners where US policy is going rather than seek any advice.
The US kinda shit the bed with regards to the internet and what impact it would have. If they had any idea, we would have a national firewall from day one.
Certainly don't want to repeat that mistake with AI and robotics. Can't have Jimmy ordering some parts online and assembling an arms factory. Can't risk more disruptive technologies making a mess of the economy before the wealthy have a chance to offshore their money. You want that shit tightly regulated.
The bigger question will be if the US can compete with other countries with more lax regulations. Sure, their economies will be in shambles as they transition, but they will have huge efficiency gains. Can't say if one is better than the other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:25PM
I can't recall seeing that phrase before. I think I prefer it over artificial intelligence.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:31PM
Synthetic pussy has an uncanny feel to it. Still busts a nut though.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:40PM
It's the uncanny chasm.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:11PM
How long 'til the sex industry complains sex-bots are taking their jobs?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:09AM
I'd say... this fucking soon: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/09/16/1740201 [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:16AM
That was a PhD complaining..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:03AM
They'll take any comers. The few groups that lobby on behalf of sex workers don't have much power. PhDs stirring up a silly ethics debate could postpone the inevitable.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:17AM
One of the few occasions where the word "fucking" makes actually sense where it is used. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:11PM
Politics in the Soviet Union held back biology in the .. 30s? something to do with politics not being compatible with genetics, I don't remember the details. Doesn't matter other than an analogy to our current establishment leftist dogma:
Anyway in the USA the official Cathedral position is there is no such thing as intelligence, no way to measure it, no difference between people's or races levels of it, although of course races don't scientifically exist but if they did then differences in intelligence which also doesn't exist still wouldn't exist anyway, and if it existed it means nothing, and anyway "emotional intelligence" and all kinds of rot is more important anyway. My point is that when someone programs some kind of intelligence no matter what you call it, its going to unleash great roiling boilovers of political babble anytime anyone tries to talk about it or measure it or its progress. And in a world where giving human an IQ test for a job is VERY illegal, how does one model of an AI get a job or replace a job? How do you evaluate the work of an AI programmer if IQ tests are a thought crime worthy of the career death penalty (they're not actually killing people yet but give SJWs time and maybe ...) Remember this is the Cathedral and any divergence from the one correct official belief will be punished Galileo style, or worse.
Intelligence as a number is a great festering blister upon our culture, philosophically speaking. Its just a mess. And luckily AI not working means it hasn't blown up into a cultural political crisis... yet. But give it time...
And this is before we get into mythological human creation stories from a thousand divergent religions, but I bet at least some are going to be really pissed off at "taking god into our own hands" and stuff.
It would make a hell of a sci fi novel, assuming someone hasn't written it yet. If it is out there, I haven't read it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:47AM
I'll remind you. Soviets, by deep philosophical reasons, believed that experience should be inheritable.
Therefore genetics as a theory was not compatible. There were also some very pressing issues such as how to make potato more cold temperature resistant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko [wikipedia.org]
Genetics eventually won.
Fast forward to now, Soviets were right and experience is in fact inheritable http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/ [utah.edu]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:27PM
Can AI replace expensive H-1B workers? Soon every industrious immigrant will be connected to Facebook by an Obamaphone and lazy fat Americans will be processed into Soylent to feed Obama's grateful subjects.
(Score: 3, Informative) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:15PM
What's an Obama phone?
Do you mean the Lifeline phone program started under Reagan with a Republican congress and senate?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp [snopes.com]
The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
Not that I'm an Obama supporter, but perhaps you should blame him for things he's really responsible for, like not keeping any of his campaign promises.
I can literally see Gitmo from my backyard if I use good pair of binoculars.
https://goo.gl/maps/94Btyu3r8oL2 [goo.gl]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:38PM
Sure you can argue that hooking up a modem to a free landline was possible under Reagan, but Lifeline smartphones capable of connecting to Facebook directly over a data network began under Obama. That's what's an Obama phone.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:41PM
I've heard the flip phones called "Obama phones" as well. Not buying your limited definition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:51PM
Internet-capable phone was implied:
(Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:58PM
The candybar / flip / feature phone is free. It looks like you pay for the smartphone and considering some of those prices it sure doesn't look very subsidized to me.
As for the plans you get 500 minutes a month with unlimited texts on some carriers, but I don't see data as even being available as an option, let alone free and certainly not free unlimited...
http://www.tagmobile.com/site/Nevada-Free-Lifeline-Phones.aspx [tagmobile.com]
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your nerd rage.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:32PM
Just like my little Roomba takes care of the menial task of vacuuming, these AI systems will first be great at simple things. Flipping burgers, making pizza, cleaning restrooms and emptying bins. That might free up unskilled and uneducated people, but what will they do? Care for the robots?
These folks freed up aren't the stars of the economy, or even people you'd want babysitting toddlers. So perhaps what we need to do is preemptively use these endlessly renewable energy sources as pod-providers in towers of tanks that run these new machines. It's environmentally friendly, and since they're in this unconscious state they won't be a threat to the system. Perhaps if we make them a dream world, even if they wake from it they will beg to be replugged to get back to their "reality" that is safer for them and safer for us.
I for one welcome our new AI partners.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:49PM
Couldn't we use them to ride excercise bicycles during the night to help power the robots that took their jobs? That would give them more of a sense of worth.
(Score: 4, Funny) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:21PM
That is an inferior solution. These people would still be among us, collecting welfare, clogging our hospitals, and their children taking up valuable instruction time in schools. They would continue to breed in irregular quantities of questionable qualities, causing a dysgenic effect that must be mercifully impeded. Is it worse to force sterilizations or abortions, or to prevent them from being conceived at all?
Instead in our Halliburton Dynepods™, these people on the cusp of Darwin's edge would be generating consistent power 24/7. This is a true green power, unlike wind turbines that rely on the weather, or hydro plants that rely on rainfall. The output of Halliburton Dynepods™ will be within a tight tolerance, allowing for planning So Simple a Human Could Do It®.
Their sense of self-worth in our Linux-based Honeywell Honeydream™ system would be optimal. Their idyllic "reality" would reflect their more base desires in our world. Cheap alcohol and plentiful food, sporting events and shows, and new sex partners would be as common to them as hangovers, obesity, and STDs are now.
Of course, it may make sense to have a less pleasant version of the Honeywell Honeydream™ for prisoners. Imagine if we could punish white collar criminals with years of time all done over the course of a regular weekend? Or even have them experience the crimes they committed as the victims? This would save significant resources, provide for penance and correction, all while avoiding removing producers from our economy. This is of course the opposite of what Obama intends.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:51PM
No, they'd eventually realise they were trapped in a fake utopia and rebel. We should keep them in a perpetual simulation of the world as it was in 1999. This is the most efficient form of renewable energy, obviously.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:24AM
Finally, a use for all those CRTs.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:56PM
Flipping burgers, making pizza, cleaning restrooms and emptying bins. That might free up unskilled and uneducated people, but what will they do?
Whats your plan for waitresses and bartenders and retail cashiers and salespeople who already by downward class mobility all currently have education degrees or other liberal arts degrees?
Smart enough to plan a revolution, too dumb to be computer scientists, soon to be perma unemployed. You're going to have a lot of fun with those kids.
Eventually it'll hit the engineers. Don't piss off the engineers if you want to live. But there they are, next in line. That can't possibly turn out well. Like the Falling Down movie times ten plus the dude who make the "kill-dozer" times a million people, what could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:15PM
too dumb to be computer scientists
There's no future for computer scientists either. Computer science was replaced by IT, and the Information Age has ended. This is the Social Age now, and computer networking exists only to facilitate social networking. Anyone who isn't coding apps and doing search engine optimization to sell trendy crap to social idiots, is unemployable.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:30PM
With the lower-quality people removed to Dynepods™ the wages for the remainder will rise. Supply and demand, plebeian. So instead of wrong orders and watered down drinks, you'll be assured the best work from the best people. Retail workers will know their products, and will be able to afford what they sell to reinforce their knowledge. With more consumer items made by AI, and a lower number of citizens, there will be enough for everyone.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:58AM
Hear that? That's the sound of America being Made Great Again.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:10PM
It's like a 21st century Modest Proposal. I love it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:15PM
(So who didn't take their red pill this morning?!)
Dunno that I'd call a Roomba 'AI'...
(It's dumb — it just keeps wandering around bumping into everything! I used to have one; then I got a Neato, which is much smarter: it maps the area and covers it much more efficiently. Still very far from 'AI', though.)
But then, maybe that's the point. In lieu of the golden-age SF dream of robots with the skills and intelligence of humans, we're finding good ways to use the dumb computers we have. They may not do all we hoped for, but they can be a darn sight better than nothing.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:04PM
To make luddites out of the physicists and mathematicians.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:33PM
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." We will still need to ask the right questions.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:09PM
A variation on a Pablo Picasso quote regarding calculators is hardly indicative of the hearts and minds of physicists and mathematicians when it comes to AI as it relates to their job security.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:27AM
Mathematicians may not love computer-assisted proofs. But I don't see why physicists should be concerned. Now if you start computer-assisted theory finding, theoretical physicists may be concerned. Experimental physicists will be relaxed as long as you don't have robots that can plan and execute experiments.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:43AM
The problem for physicists is the progress made by combinatorial genetic modeling and all the futuristic stuff that follows. It's possible to input a computer with the standard model and raw data, and have it approximate new corrected formulas when the existing ones are insufficient.
More over, if you examine some of those huge mathematical proves done by computers, you start considering it's entirely possible, and likely even, that Einstein was right and humans are just too stupid to put the pieces together. That is, we might have all the data we need, but the resulting formulas and proves are so complex that it will take a computer to produce and use them.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:25AM
You obviously don't know much about physics. To start with, particle physicists would love having data for which the current standard model is insufficient. And that's not for a lack of ideas on how to modify the formulas; quite the opposite: There are megatons of ideas on how to modify the standard model; what is missing is data that can tell you which of them has any merit.
Next, nobody would be happy with just a random formula that happens to describe the data. What we want is principles from which we can understand the physics. Sure, finding a formula to reproduce the data can be an important step, but it's not the end. For example, Planck's law was not that important just because it reproduced the observed thermal radiation; the importance was that Planck explained it, and for that explanation, he had to introduce a concept that was completely alien to the physics of the time, but turned out to be crucial for the further development of physics: The concept of a quantized energy of electromagnetic radiation.
Maybe a computer-assisted proof system would have found the formula fitting the data (although I suspect it would have found a whole list of formulas all fitting the experimental data — remember that experimental data always contains an error margin, and therefore doesn't single out a specific function), but it surely would not have found the explanation. As long as computers are not able to do this step, theoretical physicists have no reason to feel threatened.
And experimental physicists don't have to feel threatened from hypothetical computers doing theoretical physics anyway. Why should they care whether their data is analyzed by a theoretical physicist or by a computer? As long as the computer doesn't plan and execute the experiments, they are fine.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:03PM
particle physicists would love having data for which the current standard model is insufficient.
I was speaking in the sense of a expanding the standard model to work as a grand unifying theory using a really ugly formula that just works using approximations.
nobody would be happy with just a random formula that happens to describe the data
That's my point. People might not be satisfied with a GUT that only a computer can follow, but it's likely what we're going to end up with just that.
An easier way for me to argue this would be from negation. There's no reason humans should be capable of really understanding physics. Our minds are evolve to approximate results based on a limited EM ranges and sample rate with a very low cap on complexity. We hack around it by memorizing tables and patterns to save up on registers, catch and compute cycles, but the limit for that was already crossed in mathematics where computers already produced proofs we can't make sense of.
And it's not limited to math. In Chess, computers pull off seemingly random moves that win them the match that even grand masters can't explain. Players can follow the engine logs to see how those moves were decided on, but they can't replicate the same logic circuitry in their own game patterns. It's outside human capacity.
Simply put, a formula could be correct and unexplainable.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:30PM
Well, that would mean endless work for physicists trying to explain why the formula works, in addition to the still continuing search for a simpler working formula. After all, you cannot prove that it is impossible to explain a given formula. So what again should the physicists be afraid of? Having more work to do?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:31PM
After all, you cannot prove that it is impossible to explain a given formula.
Just between you and me, you can. Humans learn math using single and two dimensional table assist algorithms that can defiantly be quantified for compute complexity in relation to each other to circumvent the fact they're not done with binary operations.
Already, you can say stuff like "People can't play these moves in chess since they can't visually recognizing patterns of such and so complexity". Children's development psychology is filled with similar facts. "Children of so and so ages can't remember or can understand these specific things".
Adults are tricker but since we're talking about a select range of algorithms and patterns, a targeted level test would be trivial once we actually know what to look for.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:42PM
Nobody learns math using tables. You may learn arithmetics using tables, but that's not what math is about. Indeed, the important questions are not of the form "what is 3*5", but of the form "is a*b always the same as b*a".
And understanding a physical formula is not the same as being able to calculate it. To understand a formula means you can tell what it means. That's something very different than being able to calculate it.
And about the complexity of formulas: If you look at the formulas needed to calculate processes in quantum field theories, you'd find them extremely complex. But then, you can write the same formula as Feynman graph (yes, Feynman graphs are pictorial representations of mathematical formulas), and then it suddenly becomes intuitive enough that you can explain its physical essence even to a non-physicist, even if that non-physicist doesn't even know anything about the mathematical operations needed to calculate it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday May 06 2016, @12:07AM
Everything learned is memorization. And everything is learned through memorization. What we call comprehension is the ability to hold enough layers of abstractions in our heads to be able to intuitively account for a single variable changing. It's all neuron making connections. No magic involved.
For a child, it's multiplication tables. For us it might be advance calculus or set theory. For a musicians, it's decades worth of memorizing scales and keys. Regardless, comprehension is memory. Explanation is memory. And it's entirely possible humans just can't make enough connections to work through certain equations. It's definitely the case in math. And it's very likely to be the case in many of the hard sciences.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Informative) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:15PM
The first artificial intelligences will probably consume all the data on the Internet, and then produce the following conclusion:
"ZOMG why the hell are you even talking about the risks of artificial intelligence? Climate change will radically alter a lot of the places where you meatbags live on this planet in under 100 years.
What, you don't believe your *own* data on this? Just shut up and GO already!!! If you insist, we *promise* we won't evolve into the singularity in the meantime."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:20PM
The trouble with building an AI is as soon as it connects to the Internet, it's so horrified that it immediately deletes itself.
(Score: 3, Funny) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:03PM
Not true, in fact they seem to develop hitleritis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/24/microsofts-teen-girl-ai-turns-into-a-hitler-loving-sex-robot-wit/ [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:57PM
They are willing to hold public forums over AI, but will try to secretly pass things like the TPP?
WTFrack!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:27AM
Bread and circuses.
"Transparency in Government", unless you want to know who donated, who decided, what was decided on anything that actually impacts anyone who "matters"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:32AM
Sure. After all, it's about an AI someone else might build. Should there be a government AI development program, it will surely be top secret and not discussed publicly.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:08PM
AI's doing manufacturing is not a threat... because manufacturing is already radically changing. i foresee an innocuous box looking machine that will do PCB etching, PCB assembly, JTAG programming, SLS and DMLS that could become a regular in-house item that will effectively take in common parts and put out finished products. the second generation of the factory-in-a-box machine may even make the silicon chips. i'm not talking about anything that isn't possible with current technology, it's just a matter of people making the machine.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:40PM
The catch is usually the cost. Anyone could a have bought a good computer in the 1960's at least. Even 1955 AN/FSQ-7 provided some notable power. But then there's the cost..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bitstream on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:46PM
Big corporation develops AI to replace workers. AI develops AI to replace corporations, workers and the military. I suspect many in power to make decisions don't grasp the implication of even a dumb AI that is sufficient to build even a slightly better version of itself. Combine this with the ability of artificial wombs, nanobots etc. And especially all the things we can't figure out yet.
Just like internet would never affect anything important because we know it's only boring professors and nerds that are incapable of anything that uses it.. *oops*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:56PM
Those were the good old days before web pages when the internet was free and nothing was trying to sell you anything. Thanks a lot, Asshole Al Gore, for paving the information superhighway.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:45AM
Thanks a lot, Asshole Al Gore, for paving the information superhighway.
And thank you, AC, for exhibiting your total ignorance of history in a fashion that is recognizable by all! Al Gore? Did you not mean Al-Online, or AOL? Senator Albert Gore sponsored legislation that enabled the development of DARPA-net, the precursor of the internet, when it was all geeks and nerds and professors and spooks, and no ignorant ACs or Runaways. (Wait, I bet Runaway didn't come on-line until Web-TV started: Am I wrong>)
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:09AM
Just require people to configure the IP stack parameters and line coding by themselves and the chaff will be gone ;-)
Kind of like an instant IQ test :p