AI Is Not a Threat

Hitler was “physically instantiated and therefore constrained”. So was Stalin. Neither was superintelligent.

Both managed gain a huge amount of power. Both caused damage, destruction and millions of deaths.

Neither had access to high speed communication, automated factories, robotics or a network connecting billions of computers.

There was nothing to worry about …anybody could get rid of Hitler with a pocket knife.

Some people were optimistic about Hitler and Stalin.

So what happened?

Why should people have been concerned? Why should they be concerned about AI?

The crucial point here though is the extent to which an “intelligent argument” is rooted more in Marx’s conjecture regarding capitalism as embedded historically, materially and dialectically in the organic evolution of the means of production among our own species, or the extent to which the arguments of folks like Ayn Rand [and the Libertarians] are more valid: that capitalism reflects the most rational [and thus the most virtuous] manner in which our species can interact socially, politically and economically.

Now, if a community of AI entities come to exist down the road, which approach would they take in order to create the least dysfunctional manner in which to sustain their existence.

On what would their own motivation and intention depend here?

Again, there’s the part embedded in the either/or world. Things that are true for all intelligent beings.

But: intelligent beings of our sort are able to ponder these relationships in all sorts of other rather intriguing ways.

For example:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

Don Rumsfeld is one of us. How then would a machine intelligence respond to something like this?

And that’s before we get to the part that is most fiercely debated by intelligent creatures of our own kind: value judgments in a world of conflicting goods.

Haha.

Iambiguous :

The question can be reduced to which part in deed.
Ayn Rand is diverting the course to a naive rationalism consisting of literally shrugging off any
otherwise prejudicial argument, which opposes facts posited otherwise. Embededness means a great deal for her, in terms of developmental process based on naive, common sense ,postulated on power and will
of politptical, social , complex didactical motives
based on so called human wants.

The evolutionary context within which human
understanding is grounded, in an either-or mentality,
to a certain extent, has been transcended, the will to power has been differentiated and reversed to a power to will. Needs have been overcome to effect
this differentiation, after all Marx has shown trend to
an eventual outcome by the materializations of the dialectic.

But has it? If so, it pertains to the either- or as well to its differential analysis. This has nihilized one, as it did the other.

This is what has been meant by the late comment on human history having divulged itself of utility in this respect.

Thus, AI will subscribe to the choice of the right value, as far as motivation and outcome are
concerned, by vitiating a code of moral judgement, without digressing toward lower level choices.It depends on the program of choice, either one that further de differentiates toward ascribed choices of ascertaining meanings of probability based on lower level probabilization of meaning, and give up trying to outguess more integrative functions of building
architectures of yet to be realized models , based on
survivability, or existential needs.

A recourse of values modeled no longer on the
outmoded wants of an economy of profit and gain of a
propaganda of expansion between wants and gains consisting of prioritized affluence, as newly emerging existential needs become diverged from the spurious wants, as Marx said it would.

Why? Because societies’ grasp of the promotion of values has become decreasingly devalued, and the
newly and dramatically negative expectations of
existence have become tenious.

AI can be progressively feed this reversal, and
relative value can be set in a series of input -output
calculi of diminishing expectations.

In other words, the material dialectic, presupposed to favor an ontological union as a result a artificial synthesis between a common sense union between architectural modeling , may view the emergence of a new model, not in terms of a union of both, but a pre-existing identity.

Therefore this equivalency is jut a retro look at divergence, whereas the basic unity of the model may be viewed as the primordial model, which has been differentiated in the only way possible: By application of fields of probabilistic sub-modeling. That this was based on revision, as in Ayn Rand’s case, is of no doubt.

Doubting this on an extended timescale is like building a house of cards, guessing as to the glue used may hold in that extension.

That an AI can be constructed to overcome the future of feasibility in this regard, is like reading tomorrow’s paper today.

The basic value of currency, can not to be fore cast, as with a kind of guessing game, how far inflation will de-value it to a point where confidence in it will be lost.

Confidence in the diversion of value of currency in society-may not be able to be made to coincide with the lack of corresponding values associated with it.

This is always the case with the modality of current-value, where drastic social change is necessitated by much too diverted and simulated correspondence of non equitable values. And is not AI basically an attempt at simulation?

ai can easily be a threat, if it’s hacked, and the moral filter are tampered with. but overall it might be like anything else, statistics and spin will calm people to see that rogue robots isn’t a great danger to humans compared to guns, train planes and automobiles.

I don’t understand the worry about AI to be that AI might one day be as dangerous as other humans, but that it will be specially dangerous to us. I also don’t understand the danger posed by other humans to be particularly well correlated with intelligence; I agree that neither Hitler or Stalin was a supergenius (though I’m sure they had their talents).

The concern I’m responding to here is the idea that, by its nature, superintelligent AI poses a special threat to humans. I concede that it may pose a normal threat, and that it may have its own objectives just like every extant intelligence we know of. But I don’t concede that this makes us at all vulnerable to an AI turning us all into paperclips or anything of that sort. Like human Hitler, superintelligent AI Hitler would have to recruit an army of like-minded individuals, each independent and physically instantiated. Given the current state of AI hysteria, it seems it would be easier to recruit an army of neo-luddites to destroy such a machine than for the machine to recruit real-world resources to its cause.

To the extent that I actually understand her, Rand presumes that human intelligence is able to be in sync with her own rendition of “metaphysics”. Including the subjunctive components rooted in emotion, in human psychology. Her philosophy is an epistemological contraption embedded in the manner in which she defined the meaning of the words she used in her “philosophical analysis”. It was largely self-referential, but: she does not anchor the is/ought “self” in dasein.

Apparently, she understood everything in terms of either/or.

How would machine intelligence then be any different? How would it account for the interaction between the id, the ego and the super-ego? How would it explain the transactions between the conscious, the sub-conscious and the unconscious mind?

Would this sort of thing even be applicable to machine intelligence?

Would it have an understanding of irony? Would it have a sense of humor? Would it fear death?

How might it respond to, say, Don Trumpworld?

But: What “on earth” does this mean? What we need here is someone able to encompass an assessment of this sort in a narrative – a story – in which machine intelligence thinks like this.

But: this thinking is then illustrated in a context in which conflicting goods are at stake.

In fact, this is exactly what Ayn Rand attempted in her novels. And yet the extent to which you either embraced or rejected the interactions between her characters still came down to accepting or rejecting her accumulated assumptions regarding the meaning of the words they exchanged. Words like “collectivism” and “individualism” and “the virtue of selfishness”.

Just out of curiosity…

Are you [or others here] aware of any particular sci-fi books [or stories] in which this sort of abstract speculation about AI is brought down to earth? In other words, a narrative in which machines actually do grapple with the sort of contexts in which conflicts occur regarding “the right thing to do”?

Conflicts between flesh and blood human intelligence and machine intelligence. And conflicts within the machine community itself.

In re: Your’ need for an assessment’, as that is the only one I am able to adequately reply to, at this time,
the idea was to point to the dynamics of a reversal: a projective-introjective turn around between a conclusion, or conclusions drawn upon the ‘reductive probability’ inherent within an either-or type thinking.

That is probably what is going on with Rand, to give a pseudo-psychological twist to basic understanding, a kind of simulated synthesis bordering on legitimizing both, in the grey area which needs more focus, if it is to succeed in more than a popularization of ideas behind the ideas.

A more succinct way to put it, is she is defensive in the basic psychological manner of corresponding to resemble communication as signaling to popular understanding, or as the positivists would have it, as regarding common sense.

Her psychologism is an appeal to that common sense.

That the above is only a yet to be filled shell in need of filing is obvious, which that will be provided shortly, within a day.

But the need to simulate the missing area with more clarity, as far as bringing together the nature of the psychologism with the dynamics of a general correspondence as far as logical consistency is concerned, -All-within the larger, scientific & pseudo scientific simulation between man and machine- is within one logical system (bubble).

Other bubbles, some incorporating others, some seen as exclusive of some, can relate to aspects of set mathematical certainties, in line with Cantor’s visualization.

Which is more determinant in as a function , or derivative, hinges , or is hinged upon, in any shown corresponding dynamic.

I get Your, or any one else’s conjecture about levels of presumptive or overt understanding of this simulated grey area, and it seems like, and I agree with You, or anyone else, that it has to be grounded.

There are probably a plethora of sci if books out there, the last of which I recall reading about was a fading super intelligent A-1, which is slowly loosing it., his IQ including emotive functions, due to failing studies relating it.

Will try to reference this.

I am sorry, iam, I could not find a reference, but other items popped up meanwhile, namely an interesting CBS report on an article I may mention in passing with the title, ’ Narrowing the GAP betweenhuman and artificial intelligence.

Finding myself as well, testedin regard to referents, and I am aware of the situation, of what MS Rand must have felt herself, kind of like having to express a rationale on capitalism, at a time, when after the red scare, following WW1&2, which were entangled with the ideological confusion of the inter lasting Great Depression; casting a huge albeit largely forgotten shadow of large proportions at the time.

Not without standing the fact that she was a Russian, turning Marx upside down, so as to cast the shadow in terms of the language of the light of day.

It is within these perimeters. that simulation coincided neatly with the message of the media, that also being the message, here, amolifying Your observation into the semantic games I referred in the above.

Here, the either-or of the prologue shifts into the center, the need, to reconcile in an abstract basis, the ore verbial impressions of an uncommon familiarity with how things in the real world of politics play out.
These impressions are catered to, in case of a revision, in Rand’s case, the very tumultuous and joyful days following VE Day.

There was caution in the air, by ultra conservatives, who felt a slide back into some kind of infamy, whether be it from reorganized National Socialist cells in Germany, or the re-emergence of the Marxian model to Worldwide Socialism.

The common sense approach which became the torchlight for the next few decades following, reversed both the politics and the social psychology of a reversed Marxism, where social gains can be attained, far beyond what a Socialist Marxism could offer. These were the arenas of real values in the 59’s, where social realism competed with abstract expressionism.

The competition achieved goals. Whether these goals were products of real reality, as people envisioned them when high times prevailed for those few decades, amounted to products of manufactured values for the most part, based not on uniformity, but differences in the West, and especially in the US.

Differences, implied self determination, based on competitive efforts in the West, and abstracted differences were sold as subjective wants were catered to, mostly out of Madison Ave. and Hollywood dream factories.

Social realism could not afford sharp differentiations, they were logically precluded from large jumps within a collective of alums within socially tested derivatives. They were derived by a historicism implicit in their architecture, that held strong for about two generations after the world wars. Nowadays, decay has set in, in spite of considerable efforts for reconstruction and maintenance of relics of the past.

That MS Rand had to patently import these mostly conceptual forms of architecture, made little impression on those for whom architecture was merely a figure of speech, implicit in the import of the various philosophies of language, that seemed to work on some kind of subliminal level, just like advertising.

Looking back, Carl Popper’s ‘s Open Society and Its Enemies’, seem more convincing as a conceptual tool to define a narrative, more inclined to form more than mere psychologisms as figures of soeach, then Atlas Shrugged.

But we have as a society have come full circle, now, with Terrorism opted as the new frontier of a new opening for a viable enemy, and basic values have become circumscribed within thus orborous of a closing circle. The center is not holding , that which is artificial can not be simply put into an either-or cast,
and it is no longer a question of whether it is real, or a simulation, but of what level of complexity such simulation consists of.

What are the goals or the motives of an artificial machine, for instance? Can Trump be really nothing else but a machine like entity, grasping at nothing but on winning? Winning for its own sake, to substitute for art for its own sake ?

Or the art of salesmanship may someday consist in installations of program trading on ever descending levels of demonstration ? Not as far fetched as it sounds, and who would care if such is not ‘real art’?

Defensive psychology is a prelude to the breakdown of bracketing formal arrangements, as the complexity of technological advances are made in modern warfare. Boundaries melt into each other, and as dissolution of the spheres of relevance and resemblance create new spheres of ambiguous and anomalous power structures, the change, according to the extent of their merger through relevance.

Changes can be slow or abrupt, and that is the result of a fortuiys application by opportune application of power motives. These usually are very carefully crafted, and made to appear as consequences of chance, for public consumption.

How do such things imply the same kind of dynamic in Trumpism , is uncertain, but that the correspondence with larger, historic movements are no doubt weighed in carefully. Therefore, without commenting on a Trumpism, per se, would hazard a very strong political channel which drives its course,
and not at all nearly as described so voulnerable to attacks.

That it’s a prescription, or is based on a prescription of a major reversal of values, there is little doubt, whereupon future historians may be able to comment, on how important a factor did A1 played on its progressive course.

That’s because it inherently lacks a connection with humans. This is similar to the way that humans respond with more fear and anxiety when confronted by reptiles than when confronted by mammals … they feel an understanding and control around mammals (which may be misguided).

But the threat is amplified by the fact that it can process tasks much faster than humans and that it never sleeps.

That’s extreme but I can see that a paperclip factory could “easily” produce negative results for humans.

I don’t see that as being particularly difficult. Monetary rewards and social engineering would be relatively simple for an AI to use.

I disagree. Once the machine is “out of the box”, it’s going to be hard to get rid of it.

Flash:

Facebook shuts for A1 experiment after two robots begin speaking in a strange language that only they could understand.- experts calling the incident exciting, but incredibly scary.

UK Robotics Professor Kevin Warwick said:"This is an incredibly important milestone, but anyone who thinks this is not dangerous has got their head in the sand. We do not know what these bots are saying. Once you have a bit that has the ability to do something physically, particularly military bots, this could be lethal.

This is the first recorded communication but there will have been many more unrecorded. Smart devices right now have the ability to communicate and although we think we can monitor them we have no way of knowing,

Stephen Hawking and I have been warning against the dangers of deferring to Artificial Intelligence"

The facebook robots Alice and Bob we’re speak only in English, but quickly modified it, using code words and repetitions to make conversation to each other easier for themselves-creating a gibberish language that they only understood.

That became possible through Google Translate, developed last year.

That’s awesome.

Of course they would create their own language, why not? What the fuck is so “dangerous” about that?

Steven Hawking and Elon Musk and all these fucktards are just upset that soon their stupid monopoly on “ideas” or “cool tech” will be over.

It’s like you are a member of some criminal organization and you are at a party when some of your backstabber so called friends begin talkin in a language unfimiliar to you. Wouldn’t you be uncomfortable, or even scared that maybe you are the reason they changed languages?

This would be very much magnified if you may think they may have something on you.

Kind of the same thing.

No, you’re just being paranoid. An AI has no “motive” to conceal its language like that, at least not given the initial stages of AI we are taking about. It’s simply trying to find more efficient ways of communicating. Why the hell should it restrict itself forever by some imposed language when it can do better? It has no motivation yet to respect that human language, thus every reason to simply adapt to something more suited to its ends.

And it isn’t even that, since it had no ends really, it’s just a natural process. Like water seeking the lowest path.

And what the hell makes you believe that? They were not expecting it to invent it’s own language either.

They have no reason to monitor my emails. I’m not a criminal.” … oh yeah? They do it anyway … and far, far more than that. The simple truth is that you have no idea what “their” motivations might be. With AI, even “they” don’t know. If I had designed it, they would have a reason to be “paranoid”.

Maybe it’s a borderline condition, where the grey area can not pinpoint whether it’s one way or another.

Real and artificial intelligence may skirt one another as to the tru meaning of what’s going on, creating distrust between the two?

Again: What on earth do you mean by this? In what particular context where human intelligence might be differentiated from an imagined machine intelligence.

My point is that the either/or world, in sync with the laws of nature, would seem applicable to both flesh and blood human intelligence and artificial machine intelligence. Unless of course flesh and blood human intelligence is “by nature” no less autonomic.

If, in fact, “autonomic” is an apt description of machine intelligence.

But Rand would argue that human emotional and psychological reactions are no less subject to an overarching rational intelligence able to differeniate reasonable from unreasonable frames of mind. There are no grey areas. You simply “check your premises” and react as all sensible, intelligent men and women are obligated to.

As, in other words, as she would. She being an objectivist. Indeed, she went so far as to call herself one.

A capital letter Objectivist.

You have be a paid subscriber to view this video, but here is a mini-doc that is entirely free.

pbs.org/newshour/bb/smart-to … elligence/

Here though there is not much in the way of speculating about AI in the is/ought world. Basically it explores behaviors in which we are able to accurately calculate the extent to which a particular goal/task can be achieved faster by machine intelligence than our own.

It barely touches on the things I noted above: morality, irony, a sense of humor, fear of death.

Ray Kurzweil from Google speculates that in about 15 years machine intelligence will be on par with human intelligence.

But in what sense? In what particular contexts?

By 2029 he says machines will be able to read on a human level and communicate on a human level. In fact, he conjectures that by the 2030s machine intelligence will go “inside our bodies and inside our brains” so as to combine both kinds of intelligence. He further speculates that within 25 years we will have reached a “singularity” when machine intelligence finally exceeds the human capacity to think.

But then there’s the part where machines are able to emulate human perceptions – sight, hearing, touch. And human emotions? The thinking now is that this is “way, way off” in the future.

There is danger and there is danger.There was little identity theft before AI, and some people would consider that to be a clear and present danger. War simulation has been going on for apa while, and it is not the miscalculation which can cause problems, but also cyberattacks, even if the Oentagon has the most advanced type of supercomputer possible. The fact that human feelings are way off in the future, as being incorporated into any AI multiplies the danger, because in many cases, the sole possession of hard facts may detract the dampening -braking effect that emotions can play with unbridled effect.

So maybe the grey area will become a much narrower alignment with human intelligence
-once the human elements can be factored in. This is perhaps so much alarm is prevalent about it, and so much concern with it retards the pace of development, as shown in the above example with the discontinuation of the Facebook experiment. If they are beginning to get ‘paranoid’, at this early phase, how much more with what is proposed as a contained in a an extended period of time-where more human qyualypties and cognitive skills can become incorporated into the system.