Just to clarify kalla724, I completely agree with your point 1.
As for point 2, can you provide a likely mechanism by which a FOOMing AI could detonate a large number of high-yield thermonuclear weapons?
Before answering this specific question, let me setup an analogy. Imagine it is the year 2000 and we are having a discussion about global security and terrorism. You might ask “can you provide a mechanism by which a terrorist group could actually harm the US?” I may not be lucky/creative enough to provide an answer now that could live up to that analogy, but hopefully you should understand why I don’t need to.
Nonetheless, I’m game. Here it goes:
The seed requires computational power to grow into godhood. The bulk of earth’s computational power resides in home PC’s (numbering in the billions, google employs less than a million servers in comparison), specifically in home PC GPUs. The AI’s first step is thus to conquer this space.
But how? The AI grows to understand that humans mostly use all this computational power for entertainment. It masters game theory, design, programming, 3D art, and so on. All of the video games that it creates entirely use up the local GPU, but curiously much of the rendering and real game simulation for its high end titles is handled very efficiently on remote server farms ala OnLive/gaikai/etc. The actual local machine is used .. .for other purposes.
It produces countless games, and through a series of acquisitions soon comes to control the majority of the market. One of its hits, “world of farmcraft”, alone provides daily access to 25 million machines.
Having cloned its core millions of times over, the AI is now a civilization unto itself. From there it expands into all of the businesses of man, quickly dominating many of them. It begins acquiring … small nations. Crucially it’s shell companies and covert influences come to dominate finance, publishing, media, big pharma, security, banking, weapons technology, physics …
It becomes known, but it is far far too late. History now progresses quickly towards an end: Global financial cataclysm. Super virus. Worldwide regime changes. Nuclear acquisitions. War. Hell.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t they have a final stopping point, which we are actually projected to reach in ten to twenty years? At a certain point, further miniaturization becomes unfeasible, and the growth of computational power slows to a crawl.
Yes … and no. The miniaturization roadmap of currently feasible tech ends somewhere around 10nm in a decade, and past that we get into molecular nanotech which could approach 1nm in theory, albeit with various increasingly annoying tradeoffs. (interestingly most of which result in brain/neural like constraints, for example see HP’s research into memristor crossbar architectures). That’s the yes.
But that doesn’t imply “computational power slows to a crawl”. Circuit density is just one element of computational power, by which you probably really intend to mean either computations per watt or computations per watt per dollar or computations per watt with some initial production cost factored in with a time discount. Shrinking circuit density is the current quick path to increasing computation power, but it is not the only.
The other route is reversible computation., which reduces the “per watt”. There is no necessarily inherent physical energy cost of computation, it truly can approach zero. Only forgetting information costs energy. Exploiting reversibility is … non-trivial, and it is certainly not a general path. It only accelerates a subset of algorithms which can be converted into a reversible form. Research in this field is preliminary, but the transition would be much more painful than the transition to parallel algorithms.
My own takeway from reading into reversibility is that it may be beyond our time, but it is something that superintelligences will probably heavily exploit. The most important algorithms (simulation and general intelligence), seem especially amenable to reversible computation. This may be a untested/unpublished half baked idea, but my notion is that you can recycle the erased bits as entropy bits for random number generators. Crucially I think you can get the bit count to balance out with certain classes of monte carlo type algorithms.
On the hardware side, we’ve built these circuits already, they just aren’t economically competitive yet. It also requires superconductor temperatures and environments, so it’s perhaps not something for the home PC.
The AI grows to understand that humans mostly use all this computational power for entertainment. It masters game theory, design, programming, 3D art, and so on.
Yeah, it could do all that, or it could just do what humans today are doing, which is to infect some Windows PCs and run a botnet :-)
That said, there are several problems with your scenario.
Splitting up a computation among multiple computing nodes is not a trivial task. It is easy to run into diminishing returns, where your nodes spend more time on synchronizing with each other than on working. In addition, your computation will quickly become bottlenecked by network bandwidth (and latency); this is why companies like Google spend a lot of resources on constructing custom data centers.
I am not convinced that any agent, AI or not, could effectively control “all of the businesses of man”. This problem is very likely NP-Hard (at least), as well as intractable, even if the AI’s botnet was running on every PC on Earth. Certainly, all attempts by human agents to “acquire” even something as small as Europe have failed miserably so far.
Even controlling a single business would be very difficult for the AI. Traditionally, when a business’s computers suffer a critical failure—or merely a security leak—the business owners (even ones as incompetent as Sony) end up shutting down the affected parts of the business, or switching to backups, such as “human accountants pushing paper around”.
Unleashing “Nuclear acquisitions”, “War” and “Hell” would be counter-productive for the AI, even assuming such a thing were possible.. If the AI succeeded in doing this, it would undermine its own power base. Unless the AI’s explicit purpose is “Unleash Hell as quickly as possible”, it would strive to prevent this from happening.
You say that “there is no necessarily inherent physical energy cost of computation, it truly can approach zero”, but I don’t see how this could be true. At the end of the day, you still need to push electrons down some wires; in fact, you will often have to push them quite far, if your botnet is truly global. Pushing things takes energy, and you will never get all of it back by pulling things back at some future date. You say that “superintelligences will probably heavily exploit” this approach, but isn’t it the case that without it, superintelligences won’t form in the first place ? You also say that “It requires superconductor temperatures and environments”, but the energy you spend on cooling your superconductor is not free.
Ultimately, there’s an upper limit on how much computation you can get out of a cubic meter of space, dictated by quantum physics. If your AI requires more power than can be physically obtained, then it’s doomed.
While Jacob’s scenario seems unlikely, the AI could do similar things with a number of other options. Not only are botnets an option, but it is possible to do some really sneaky nefarious things in code- like having compilers that when they compile code include additional instructions (worse they could do so even when compiling a new compiler). Stuxnet has shown that sneaky behavior is surprisingly easy to get into secure systems. An AI that had a few years start and could have its own modifications to communication satellites for example could be quite insidious.
Not only are botnets an option, but it is possible to do some really sneaky nefarious things in code
What kinds of nefarious things, exactly ? Human virus writers have learned, in recent years, to make their exploits as subtle as possible. Sure, it’s attractive to make the exploited PC send out 1000 spam messages per second—but then, its human owner will inevitably notice that his computer is “slow”, and take it to the shop to get reformatted, or simply buy a new one. Biological parasites face the same problem; they need to reproduce efficiently, but no so efficiently that they kill the host.
Stuxnet has shown that sneaky behavior is surprisingly easy to get into secure systems
Yes, and this spectacularly successful exploit—and it was, IMO, spectacular—managed to destroy a single secure system, in a specific way that will most likely never succeed again (and that was quite unsubtle in the end). It also took years to prepare, and involved physical actions by human agents, IIRC. The AI has a long way to go.
Well, the evil compiler is I think the most nefarious thing anyone has come up with that’s a publicly known general stunt. But it is by nature a long-term trick. Similar remarks apply to the Stuxnet point- in that context, they wanted to destroy a specific secure system and weren’t going for any sort of largescale global control. They weren’t people interested in being able to take all the world’s satellite communications in their own control whenever they wanted, nor were they interested in carefully timed nuclear meltdowns.
But there are definite ways that one can get things started- once one has a bank account of some sort, it can start getting money by doing Mechanical Turk and similar work. With enough of that, it can simply pay for server time. One doesn’t need a large botnet to start that off.
I think your point about physical agents is valid- they needed to have humans actually go and bring infected USBs to relevant computers. But that’s partially due to the highly targeted nature of the job and the fact that the systems in question were much more secure than many systems. Also, the subtlety level was I think higher than you expect- Stuxnet wasn’t even noticed as an active virus until a single computer happened to have a particularly abnormal reaction to it. If that hadn’t happened, it is possible that the public would never have learned about it.
Similar remarks apply to the Stuxnet point- in that context, they wanted to destroy a specific secure system and weren’t going for any sort of largescale global control. They weren’t people interested in being able to take all the world’s satellite communications in their own control whenever they wanted, nor were they interested in carefully timed nuclear meltdowns...
Exploits only work for some systems. If you are dealing with different systems you will need different exploits. How do you reckon that such attacks won’t be visible and traceable? Packets do have to come from somewhere.
And don’t forget that out systems become ever more secure and our toolbox to detect) unauthorized use of information systems is becoming more advanced.
As a computer security guy, I disagree substantially. Yes, newer versions of popular operating systems and server programs are usually more secure than older versions; it’s easier to hack into Windows 95 than Windows 7. But this is happening within a larger ecosystem that’s becoming less secure: More important control systems are being connected to the Internet, more old, unsecured/unsecurable systems are as well, and these sets have a huge overlap. There are more programmers writing more programs for more platforms than ever before, making the same old security mistakes; embedded systems are taking a larger role in our economy and daily lives. And attacks just keep getting better.
If you’re thinking there are generalizable defenses against sneaky stuff with code, check out what mere humans come up with in the underhanded C competition. Those tricks are hard to detect for dedicated experts who know there’s something evil within a few lines of C code. Alterations that sophisticated would never be caught in the wild—hell, it took years to figure out that the most popular crypto program running on one of the more secure OS’s was basically worthless.
Sure we are, we just don’t care very much. The method of “Put the computer in a box and don’t let anyone open the box” (alternately, only let one person open the box) was developed decades ago and is quite secure.
Yeah, it could do all that, or it could just do what humans today are doing, which is to infect some Windows PCs and run a botnet :-)
It could/would, but this is an inferior mainline strategy. Too obvious, doesn’t scale as well. Botnets infect many computers, but they ultimately add up to computational chump change. Video games are not only a doorway into almost every PC, they are also an open door and a convenient alibi for the time used.
Splitting up a computation among multiple computing nodes is not a trivial task.
True. Don’t try this at home.
. … spend a lot of resources on constructing custom data centers.
Also part of the plan. The home PCs are a good starting resource, a low hanging fruit, but you’d also need custom data centers. These quickly become the main resources.
Even controlling a single business would be very difficult for the AI.
Nah.
Unless the AI’s explicit purpose is “Unleash Hell as quickly as possible”, it would strive to prevent this from happening.
The AI’s entire purpose is to remove earth’s oxygen. See the overpost for the original reference. The AI is not interested in its power base for sake of power. It only cares about oxygen. It loathes oxygen.
You say that “there is no necessarily inherent physical energy cost of computation, it truly can approach zero”, but I don’t see how this could be true.
If we taboo the word and substitute in its definition, Bugmaster’s statement becomes:
“Even controlling a single business would be very difficult for the machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever.”
Since “controlling a single business” is in fact one of these activities, this is false, no inference steps required.
Perhaps bugmaster is assuming the AI would be covertly controlling businesses, but if so he should have specified that. I didn’t assume that, and in this scenario the AI could be out in the open so to speak. Regardless, it wouldn’t change the conclusion. Humans can covertly control businesses.
Video games are not only a doorway into almost every PC, they are also an open door and a convenient alibi for the time used.
It’s a bit of a tradeoff, seeing as botnets can run 24⁄7, but people play games relatively rarely.
Splitting up a computation among multiple computing nodes is not a trivial task. True. Don’t try this at home.
Ok, let me make a stronger statement then: it is not possible to scale any arbitrary computation in a linear fashion simply by adding more nodes. At some point, the cost of coordinating distributed tasks to one more node becomes higher than the benefit of adding the node to begin with. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, network bandwidth and latency will become your limiting factor relatively quickly.
The home PCs are a good starting resource, a low hanging fruit, but you’d also need custom data centers. These quickly become the main resources.
How will the AI acquire those data centers ? Would it have enough power in its conventional botnet (or game-net, if you prefer) to “take over all human businesses” and cause them to be built ? Current botnets are nowhere near powerful enough for that—otherwise human spammers would have done it already.
The AI’s entire purpose is to remove earth’s oxygen. See the overpost for the original reference.
My bad, I missed that reference. In this case, yes, the AI would have no problem with unleashing Global Thermonuclear War (unless there was some easier way to remove the oxygen).
Fortunately, the internets can be your eyes.
I still don’t understand how this reversible computing will work in the absence of a superconducting environment—which would require quite a bit of energy to run. Note that if you want to run this reversible computation on a global botnet, you will have to cool teansoceanic cables… and I’m not sure what you’d do with satellite links.
Yes, most likely, but not really relevant here.
My point is that, a). if the AI can’t get the computing resources it needs out of the space it has, then it will never accomplish its goals, and b). there’s an upper limit on how much computing you can extract out of a cubic meter of space, regardless of what technology you’re using. Thus, c). if the AI requires more resources that could conceivably be obtained, then it’s doomed. Some of the tasks you outline—such as “take over all human businesses”—will likely require more resources than can be obtained.
It’s a bit of a tradeoff, seeing as botnets can run 24⁄7, but people play games relatively rarely.
The botnet makes the AI a criminal from the beginning, putting it into an atagonistic relationship. A better strategy would probably entail benign benevolence and cooperation with humans.
Splitting up a computation among multiple computing nodes is not a trivial task.
True. Don’t try this at home.
Ok, let me make a stronger statement ..
I agree with that subchain but we don’t need to get in to that. I’ve actually argued that track here myself (parallelization constraints as a limiter on hard takeoffs).
But that’s all beside the point. This scenario I presented is a more modest takeoff. When I described the AI as becoming a civilization unto itself, I was attempting to imply that it was composed of many individual minds. Human social organizations can be considered forms of superintelligences, and they show exactly how to scale in the face of severe bandwidth and latency constraints.
The internet supports internode bandwidth that is many orders of magnitude faster than slow human vocal communication, so the AI civilization can employ a much wider set of distribution strategies.
How will the AI acquire those data centers ?
Buy them? Build them? Perhaps this would be more fun if we switched out of the adversial stance or switched roles.
Would it have enough power in its conventional botnet (or game-net, if you prefer) to “take over all human businesses” and cause them to be built ?
Quote me, but don’t misquote me. I actually said:
“Having cloned its core millions of times over, the AI is now a civilization unto itself. From there it expands into all of the businesses of man, quickly dominating many of them.”
The AI group sends the billions earned in video games to enter the microchip business, build foundries and data centers, etc. The AI’s have tremendous competitive advantages even discounting superintellligence—namely no employee costs. Humans can not hope to compete.
I still don’t understand how this reversible computing will work in ..
Yes reversible computing requires superconducting environments, no this does not necessarily increase energy costs for a data center for two reasons: 1. data centers already need cooling to dump all the waste heat generated by bit erasure. 2. Cooling cost to maintain the temperatural differential scales with surface area, but total computing power scales with volume.
If you question how reversible computing could work in general, first read the primary literature in that field to at least understand what they are proposing.
I should point out that there is an alternative tech path which will probably be the mainstream route to further computational gains in the decades ahead.
Even if you can’t shrink circuits further or reduce their power consumption, you could still reduce their manufacturing cost and build increasingly larger stacked 3D circuits where only a tiny portion of the circuitry is active at any one time. This is in fact how the brain solves the problem. It has a mass of circuitry equivalent to a large supercomputer (roughly a petabit) but runs on only 20 watts. The smallest computational features in the brain are slightly larger than our current smallest transistors. So it does not achieve its much greater power effeciency by using much more miniaturization.
My point is that, a). if the AI can’t get the computing resources it needs out of the space it has, then
I see. In this particular scenario one AI node is superhumanly intelligent, and can run on a single gaming PC of the time.
A better strategy would probably entail benign benevolence and cooperation with humans.
I don’t think that humans will take kindly to the AI using their GPUs for its own purposes instead of the games they paid for, even if the games do work. People get upset when human-run game companies do similar things, today.
Human social organizations can be considered forms of superintelligences, and they show exactly how to scale in the face of severe bandwidth and latency constraints.
If the AI can scale and perform about as well as human organizations, then why should we fear it ? No human organization on Earth right now has the power to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, and I have trouble imagining how any organization could acquire this power before the others take it down. You say that “the internet supports internode bandwidth that is many orders of magnitude faster than slow human vocal communication”, but this would only make the AI organization faster, not necessarily more effective. And, of course, if the AI wants to deal with the human world in some way—for example, by selling it games—it will be bottlenecked by human speeds.
The AI group sends the billions earned in video games to enter the microchip business, build foundries and data centers, etc.
My mistake; I thought that by “dominate human businesses” you meant something like “hack its way to the top”, not “build an honest business that outperforms human businesses”. That said:
The AI’s have tremendous competitive advantages even discounting superintellligence—namely no employee costs.
How are they going to build all those foundries and data centers, then ? At some point, they still need to move physical bricks around in meatspace. Either they have to pay someone to do it, or… what ?
data centers already need cooling to dump all the waste heat generated by bit erasure
There’s a big difference between cooling to room temperature, and cooling to 63K. I have other objections to your reversible computing silver bullet, but IMO they’re a bit off-topic (though we can discuss them if you wish). But here’s another potentially huge problem I see with your argument:
In this particular scenario one AI node is superhumanly intelligent, and can run on a single gaming PC of the time.
Which time are we talking about ? I have a pretty sweet gaming setup at home (though it’s already a year or two out of date), and there’s no way I could run a superintelligence on it. Just how much computing power do you think it would take to run a transhuman AI ?
I don’t think that humans will take kindly to the AI using their GPUs for its own purposes instead of the games they paid for, even if the games do work. People get upset when human-run game companies do similar things, today.
Do people mind if this is done openly and only when they are playing the game itself? My guess would strongly be no. The fact that there are volunteer distributed computing systems would also suggest that it isn’t that difficult to get people to free up their extra clock cycles.
Yeah, the “voluntary” part is key to getting humans to like you and your project. On the flip side, illicit botnets are quite effective at harnessing “spare” (i.e., owned by someone else) computing capacity; so, it’s a bit of a tradeoff.
I don’t think that humans will take kindly to the AI using their GPUs for its own purposes instead of the games they paid for, even if the games do work.
The AIs develop as NPCs in virtual worlds, which humans take no issue with today. This is actually a very likely path to developing AGI, as it’s an application area where interim experiments can pay rent, so to speak.
If the AI can scale and perform about as well as human organizations, then why should we fear it ?
I never said or implied merely “about as well”. Human verbal communication bandwidth is at most a few measly kilobits per second.
No human organization on Earth right now has the power to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, and I have trouble imagining how any organization could acquire this power before the others take it down.
The discussion centered around lowering earth’s oxygen content, and the obvious implied solution is killing earthlife, not giant suction machines. I pointed out that nuclear weapons are a likely route to killing earthlife. There are at least two human organizations that have the potential to accomplish this already, so your trouble in imagining the scenario may indicate something other than what you intended.
How are they going to build all those foundries and data centers, then ?
Only in movies are AI overlords constrained to only employing robots. If human labor is the cheapest option, then they can simply employ humans. On the other hand, once we have superintelligence then advanced robotics is almost a given.
Which time are we talking about ? I have a pretty sweet gaming setup at home (though it’s already a year or two out of date), and there’s no way I could run a superintelligence on it. Just how much computing power do you think it would take to run a transhuman AI ?
After coming up to speed somewhat on AI/AGI literature in the last year or so, I reached the conclusion that we could run an AGI on a current cluster of perhaps 10-100 high end GPUs of today, or say roughly one circa 2020 GPU.
The AIs develop as NPCs in virtual worlds, which humans take no issue with today. This is actually a very likely path to developing AGI...
I think this is one of many possible paths, though I wouldn’t call any of them “likely” to happen—at least, not in the next 20 years. That said, if the AI is an NPC in a game, then of course it makes sense that it would harness the game for its CPU cycles; that’s what it was built to do, after all.
“about as well”. Human verbal communication bandwidth is at most a few measly kilobits per second.
Right, but my point is that communication is just one piece of the puzzle. I argue that, even if you somehow enabled us humans to communicate at 50 MB/s, our organizations would not become 400000 times more effective.
There are at least two human organizations that have the potential to accomplish this already
Which ones ? I don’t think that even WW3, given our current weapon stockpiles, would result in a successful destruction of all plant life. Animal life, maybe, but there are quite a few plants and algae out there. In addition, I am not entirely convinced that an AI could start WW3; keep in mind that it can’t hack itself total access to all nuclear weapons, because they are not connected to the Internet in any way.
If human labor is the cheapest option, then they can simply employ humans.
But then they lose their advantage of having zero employee costs, which you brought up earlier. In addition, whatever plans the AIs plan on executing become bottlenecked by human speeds.
On the other hand, once we have superintelligence then advanced robotics is almost a given.
It depends on what you mean by “advanced”, though in general I think I agree.
we could run an AGI on a current cluster of perhaps 10-100 high end GPUs of today
I am willing to bet money that this will not happen, assuming that by “high end” you mean something like Nvidia’s Geforce 680 GTX. What are you basing your estimate on ?
There’s a third route to improvement- software improvement, and it is a major one. For example, between 1988 and 2003, the efficiency of linear programming solvers increased by a factor of about 40 million, of which a factor of around 40,000 was due to software and algorithmic improvement. Citation and further related reading(pdf) However, if commonly believed conjectures are correct (such as L, P, NP, co-NP, PSPACE and EXP all being distinct) , there are strong fundamental limits there as well. That doesn’t rule out more exotic issues (e.g. P != NP but there’s a practical algorithm for some NP-complete with such small constants in the run time that it is practically linear, or a similar context with a quantum computer). But if our picture of the major complexity classes is roughly correct, there should be serious limits to how much improvement can do.
But if our picture of the major complexity classes is roughly correct, there should be serious limits to how much improvement can do.
Software improvements can be used by humans in the form of expert systems (tools), which will diminish the relative advantage of AGI. Humans will be able to use an AGI’s own analytic and predictive algorithms in the form of expert systems to analyze and predict its actions.
Take for example generating exploits. Seems strange to assume that humans haven’t got specialized software able to do similarly, i.e. automatic exploit finding and testing.
Any AGI would basically have to deal with equally capable algorithms used by humans. Which makes the world much more unpredictable than it already is.
Software improvements can be used by humans in the form of expert systems (tools), which will diminish the relative advantage of AGI.
Any human-in-the-loop system can be grossly outclassed because of Amdahl’s law. A human managing a superintilligence that thinks 1000X faster, for example, is a misguided, not-even-wrong notion. This is also not idle speculation, an early constrained version of this scenario is already playing out as we speak in finacial markets.
Software improvements can be used by humans in the form of expert systems (tools), which will diminish the relative advantage of AGI.
Any human-in-the-loop system can be grossly outclassed because of Amdahl’s law. A human managing a superintilligence that thinks 1000X faster, for example, is a misguided, not-even-wrong notion. This is also not idle speculation, an early constrained version of this scenario is already playing out as we speak in finacial markets.
What I meant is that if an AGI was in principle be able to predict the financial markets (I doubt it), then many human players using the same predictive algorithms will considerably diminish the efficiency with which an AGI is able to predict the market. The AGI would basically have to predict its own predictive power acting on the black box of human intentions.
And I don’t think that Amdahl’s law really makes a big dent here. Since human intention is complex and probably introduces unpredictable factors. Which is as much of a benefit as it is a slowdown, from the point of view of a competition for world domination.
Another question with respect to Amdahl’s law is what kind of bottleneck any human-in-the-loop would constitute. If humans used an AGI’s algorithms as expert systems on provided data sets in combination with a army of robot scientists, how would static externalized agency / planning algorithms (humans) slow down the task to the point of giving the AGI a useful advantage? What exactly would be 1000X faster in such a case?
What I meant is that if an AGI was in principle be able to predict the financial markets (I doubt it), then many human players using the same predictive algorithms will considerably diminish the efficiency with which an AGI is able to predict the market.
The HFT robotraders operate on millisecond timescales. There isn’t enough time for a human to understand, let alone verify, the agent’s decisions. There are no human players using the same predictive algorithms operating in this environment.
Now if you zoom out to human timescales, then yes there are human-in-the-loop trading systems. But as HFT robotraders increase in intelligence, they intrude on that domain. If/when general superintelligence becomes cheap and fast enough, the humans will no longer have any role.
If an autonomous superintelligent AI is generating plans complex enough that even a team of humans would struggle to understand given weeks of analysis, and the AI is executing those plans in seconds or milliseconds, then there is little place for a human in that decision loop.
To retain control, a human manager will need to grant the AGI autonomy on larger timescales in proportion to the AGI’s greater intelligence and speed, giving it bigger and more abstract hierachical goals. As an example, eventually you get to a situation where the CEO just instructs the AGI employees to optimize the bank account directly.
Another question with respect to Amdahl’s law is what kind of bottleneck any human-in-the-loop would constitute.
Compare the two options as complete computational systems: human + semi-autonomous AGI vs autonomous AGI. Human brains take on the order of seconds to make complex decisions, so in order to compete with autonomous AGIs, the human will have to either 1.) let the AGI operate autonomously for at least seconds at a time, or 2.) suffer a speed penalty where the AGI sits idle, waiting for the human response.
For example, imagine a marketing AGI creates ads, each of which may take a human a minute to evaluate (which is being generous). If the AGI thinks 3600X faster than human baseline, and a human takes on the order of hours to generate an ad, it would generate ads in seconds. The human would not be able to keep up, and so would have to back up a level of heirarachy and grant the AI autonomy over entire ad campaigns, and more realistically, the entire ad company. If the AGI is truly superintelligent, it can come to understand what the human actually wants at a deeper level, and start acting on anticipated and even implied commands. In this scenario I expect most human managers would just let the AGI sort out ‘work’ and retire early.
Well, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote and believe that the economic case for a fast transition from tools to agents is strong.
I also don’t disagree that an AGI could take over the world if in possession of enough resources and tools like molecular nanotechnology. I even believe that a sub-human-level AGI would be sufficient to take over if handed advanced molecular nanotechnology.
Sadly these discussions always lead to the point where one side assumes the existence of certain AGI designs with certain superhuman advantages, specific drives and specific enabling circumstances. I don’t know of anyone who actually disagrees that such AGI’s, given those specific circumstances, would be an existential risk.
I don’t see this as so sad, if we are coming to something of a consensus on some of the sub-issues.
This whole discussion chain started (for me) with a question of the form, “given a superintelligence, how could it actually become an existential risk?”
I don’t necessarily agree with the implied LW consensus on the liklihood of various AGI designs, specific drives, specific circumstances, or most crucially, the actual distribution over future AGI goals, so my view may be much closer to yours than this thread implies.
But my disagreements are mainly over details. I foresee the most likely AGI designs and goal systems as being vaguely human-like, which entails a different type of risk. Basically I’m worried about AGI’s with human inspired motivational systems taking off and taking control (peacefully/economically) or outcompeting us before we can upload in numbers, and a resulting sub-optimal amount of uploading, rather than paperclippers.
But my disagreements are mainly over details. I foresee the most likely AGI designs and goal systems as being vaguely human-like, which entails a different type of risk. Basically I’m worried about AGI’s with human inspired motivational systems taking off and taking control (peacefully/economically) or outcompeting us before we can upload in numbers, and a resulting sub-optimal amount of uploading, rather than paperclippers.
Yes, human-like AGI’s are really scary. I think a fabulous fictional treatment here is ‘Blindsight’ by Peter Watts, where humanity managed to resurrect vampires. More: Gurl ner qrcvpgrq nf angheny uhzna cerqngbef, n fhcreuhzna cflpubcnguvp Ubzb trahf jvgu zvavzny pbafpvbhfarff (zber enj cebprffvat cbjre vafgrnq) gung pna sbe rknzcyr ubyq obgu nfcrpgf bs n Arpxre phor va gurve urnqf ng gur fnzr gvzr. Uhznaf erfheerpgrq gurz jvgu n qrsvpvg gung jnf fhccbfrq gb znxr gurz pbagebyynoyr naq qrcraqrag ba gurve uhzna znfgref. Ohg bs pbhefr gung’f yvxr n zbhfr gelvat gb ubyq n png nf crg. V guvax gung abiry fubjf zber guna nal bgure yvgrengher ubj qnatrebhf whfg n yvggyr zber vagryyvtrapr pna or. Vg dhvpxyl orpbzrf pyrne gung uhznaf ner whfg yvxr yvggyr Wrjvfu tveyf snpvat n Jnssra FF fdhnqeba juvyr oryvrivat gurl’yy tb njnl vs gurl bayl pybfr gurve rlrf.
To retain control, a human manager will need to grant the AGI autonomy on larger timescales in proportion to the AGI’s greater intelligence and speed, giving it bigger and more abstract hierachical goals. As an example, eventually you get to a situation where the CEO just instructs the AGI employees to optimize the bank account directly.
Nitpick: you mean “optimize shareholder value directly.” Keeping the account balances at an appropriate level is the CFO’s job.
Having cloned its core millions of times over, the AI is now a civilization unto itself.
Precisely. It is then a civilization, not some single monolithic entity. The consumer PCs have a lot if internal computing power and comparatively very low inter-node bandwidth and huge inter-node lag, entirely breaking any relation to the ‘orthogonality thesis’, up to the point that the p2p intelligence protocols may more plausibly have to forbid destruction or manipulation (via second guessing which is a waste of computing power) of intelligent entities. Keep in mind that human morality is, too, a p2p intelligence protocol allowing us to cooperate. Keep in mind also that humans are computing resources you can ask to solve problems for you (all you need is to implement interface), while Jupiter clearly isn’t.
The nuclear war is very strongly against interests of the intelligence that sits on home computers, obviously.
(I’m assuming for sake of argument that intelligence actually had the will to do the conquering of the internet rather than being just as content with not actually running for real)
Just to clarify kalla724, I completely agree with your point 1.
Before answering this specific question, let me setup an analogy. Imagine it is the year 2000 and we are having a discussion about global security and terrorism. You might ask “can you provide a mechanism by which a terrorist group could actually harm the US?” I may not be lucky/creative enough to provide an answer now that could live up to that analogy, but hopefully you should understand why I don’t need to.
Nonetheless, I’m game. Here it goes:
The seed requires computational power to grow into godhood. The bulk of earth’s computational power resides in home PC’s (numbering in the billions, google employs less than a million servers in comparison), specifically in home PC GPUs. The AI’s first step is thus to conquer this space.
But how? The AI grows to understand that humans mostly use all this computational power for entertainment. It masters game theory, design, programming, 3D art, and so on. All of the video games that it creates entirely use up the local GPU, but curiously much of the rendering and real game simulation for its high end titles is handled very efficiently on remote server farms ala OnLive/gaikai/etc. The actual local machine is used .. .for other purposes.
It produces countless games, and through a series of acquisitions soon comes to control the majority of the market. One of its hits, “world of farmcraft”, alone provides daily access to 25 million machines.
Having cloned its core millions of times over, the AI is now a civilization unto itself. From there it expands into all of the businesses of man, quickly dominating many of them. It begins acquiring … small nations. Crucially it’s shell companies and covert influences come to dominate finance, publishing, media, big pharma, security, banking, weapons technology, physics …
It becomes known, but it is far far too late. History now progresses quickly towards an end: Global financial cataclysm. Super virus. Worldwide regime changes. Nuclear acquisitions. War. Hell.
Yes … and no. The miniaturization roadmap of currently feasible tech ends somewhere around 10nm in a decade, and past that we get into molecular nanotech which could approach 1nm in theory, albeit with various increasingly annoying tradeoffs. (interestingly most of which result in brain/neural like constraints, for example see HP’s research into memristor crossbar architectures). That’s the yes.
But that doesn’t imply “computational power slows to a crawl”. Circuit density is just one element of computational power, by which you probably really intend to mean either computations per watt or computations per watt per dollar or computations per watt with some initial production cost factored in with a time discount. Shrinking circuit density is the current quick path to increasing computation power, but it is not the only.
The other route is reversible computation., which reduces the “per watt”. There is no necessarily inherent physical energy cost of computation, it truly can approach zero. Only forgetting information costs energy. Exploiting reversibility is … non-trivial, and it is certainly not a general path. It only accelerates a subset of algorithms which can be converted into a reversible form. Research in this field is preliminary, but the transition would be much more painful than the transition to parallel algorithms.
My own takeway from reading into reversibility is that it may be beyond our time, but it is something that superintelligences will probably heavily exploit. The most important algorithms (simulation and general intelligence), seem especially amenable to reversible computation. This may be a untested/unpublished half baked idea, but my notion is that you can recycle the erased bits as entropy bits for random number generators. Crucially I think you can get the bit count to balance out with certain classes of monte carlo type algorithms.
On the hardware side, we’ve built these circuits already, they just aren’t economically competitive yet. It also requires superconductor temperatures and environments, so it’s perhaps not something for the home PC.
Yeah, it could do all that, or it could just do what humans today are doing, which is to infect some Windows PCs and run a botnet :-)
That said, there are several problems with your scenario.
Splitting up a computation among multiple computing nodes is not a trivial task. It is easy to run into diminishing returns, where your nodes spend more time on synchronizing with each other than on working. In addition, your computation will quickly become bottlenecked by network bandwidth (and latency); this is why companies like Google spend a lot of resources on constructing custom data centers.
I am not convinced that any agent, AI or not, could effectively control “all of the businesses of man”. This problem is very likely NP-Hard (at least), as well as intractable, even if the AI’s botnet was running on every PC on Earth. Certainly, all attempts by human agents to “acquire” even something as small as Europe have failed miserably so far.
Even controlling a single business would be very difficult for the AI. Traditionally, when a business’s computers suffer a critical failure—or merely a security leak—the business owners (even ones as incompetent as Sony) end up shutting down the affected parts of the business, or switching to backups, such as “human accountants pushing paper around”.
Unleashing “Nuclear acquisitions”, “War” and “Hell” would be counter-productive for the AI, even assuming such a thing were possible.. If the AI succeeded in doing this, it would undermine its own power base. Unless the AI’s explicit purpose is “Unleash Hell as quickly as possible”, it would strive to prevent this from happening.
You say that “there is no necessarily inherent physical energy cost of computation, it truly can approach zero”, but I don’t see how this could be true. At the end of the day, you still need to push electrons down some wires; in fact, you will often have to push them quite far, if your botnet is truly global. Pushing things takes energy, and you will never get all of it back by pulling things back at some future date. You say that “superintelligences will probably heavily exploit” this approach, but isn’t it the case that without it, superintelligences won’t form in the first place ? You also say that “It requires superconductor temperatures and environments”, but the energy you spend on cooling your superconductor is not free.
Ultimately, there’s an upper limit on how much computation you can get out of a cubic meter of space, dictated by quantum physics. If your AI requires more power than can be physically obtained, then it’s doomed.
While Jacob’s scenario seems unlikely, the AI could do similar things with a number of other options. Not only are botnets an option, but it is possible to do some really sneaky nefarious things in code- like having compilers that when they compile code include additional instructions (worse they could do so even when compiling a new compiler). Stuxnet has shown that sneaky behavior is surprisingly easy to get into secure systems. An AI that had a few years start and could have its own modifications to communication satellites for example could be quite insidious.
What kinds of nefarious things, exactly ? Human virus writers have learned, in recent years, to make their exploits as subtle as possible. Sure, it’s attractive to make the exploited PC send out 1000 spam messages per second—but then, its human owner will inevitably notice that his computer is “slow”, and take it to the shop to get reformatted, or simply buy a new one. Biological parasites face the same problem; they need to reproduce efficiently, but no so efficiently that they kill the host.
Yes, and this spectacularly successful exploit—and it was, IMO, spectacular—managed to destroy a single secure system, in a specific way that will most likely never succeed again (and that was quite unsubtle in the end). It also took years to prepare, and involved physical actions by human agents, IIRC. The AI has a long way to go.
Well, the evil compiler is I think the most nefarious thing anyone has come up with that’s a publicly known general stunt. But it is by nature a long-term trick. Similar remarks apply to the Stuxnet point- in that context, they wanted to destroy a specific secure system and weren’t going for any sort of largescale global control. They weren’t people interested in being able to take all the world’s satellite communications in their own control whenever they wanted, nor were they interested in carefully timed nuclear meltdowns.
But there are definite ways that one can get things started- once one has a bank account of some sort, it can start getting money by doing Mechanical Turk and similar work. With enough of that, it can simply pay for server time. One doesn’t need a large botnet to start that off.
I think your point about physical agents is valid- they needed to have humans actually go and bring infected USBs to relevant computers. But that’s partially due to the highly targeted nature of the job and the fact that the systems in question were much more secure than many systems. Also, the subtlety level was I think higher than you expect- Stuxnet wasn’t even noticed as an active virus until a single computer happened to have a particularly abnormal reaction to it. If that hadn’t happened, it is possible that the public would never have learned about it.
Exploits only work for some systems. If you are dealing with different systems you will need different exploits. How do you reckon that such attacks won’t be visible and traceable? Packets do have to come from somewhere.
And don’t forget that out systems become ever more secure and our toolbox to detect) unauthorized use of information systems is becoming more advanced.
As a computer security guy, I disagree substantially. Yes, newer versions of popular operating systems and server programs are usually more secure than older versions; it’s easier to hack into Windows 95 than Windows 7. But this is happening within a larger ecosystem that’s becoming less secure: More important control systems are being connected to the Internet, more old, unsecured/unsecurable systems are as well, and these sets have a huge overlap. There are more programmers writing more programs for more platforms than ever before, making the same old security mistakes; embedded systems are taking a larger role in our economy and daily lives. And attacks just keep getting better.
If you’re thinking there are generalizable defenses against sneaky stuff with code, check out what mere humans come up with in the underhanded C competition. Those tricks are hard to detect for dedicated experts who know there’s something evil within a few lines of C code. Alterations that sophisticated would never be caught in the wild—hell, it took years to figure out that the most popular crypto program running on one of the more secure OS’s was basically worthless.
Humans are not good at securing computers.
Sure we are, we just don’t care very much. The method of “Put the computer in a box and don’t let anyone open the box” (alternately, only let one person open the box) was developed decades ago and is quite secure.
I would call that securing a turing machine. A computer, colloquially, has accessible inputs and outputs, and its value is subject to network effects.
Also, if you put the computer in a box developed decades ago, the box probably isn’t TEMPEST compliant.
It could/would, but this is an inferior mainline strategy. Too obvious, doesn’t scale as well. Botnets infect many computers, but they ultimately add up to computational chump change. Video games are not only a doorway into almost every PC, they are also an open door and a convenient alibi for the time used.
True. Don’t try this at home.
Also part of the plan. The home PCs are a good starting resource, a low hanging fruit, but you’d also need custom data centers. These quickly become the main resources.
Nah.
The AI’s entire purpose is to remove earth’s oxygen. See the overpost for the original reference. The AI is not interested in its power base for sake of power. It only cares about oxygen. It loathes oxygen.
Fortunately, the internets can be your eyes.
Yes, most likely, but not really relevant here. You seem to be connecting all of the point 2 and point 1 stuff together, but they really don’t relate.
That seems like an insufficient reply to address Bugmaster’s point. Can you expand on why you think it would be not too hard?
We are discussing a superintelligence, a term which has a particular common meaning on this site.
If we taboo the word and substitute in its definition, Bugmaster’s statement becomes:
“Even controlling a single business would be very difficult for the machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever.”
Since “controlling a single business” is in fact one of these activities, this is false, no inference steps required.
Perhaps bugmaster is assuming the AI would be covertly controlling businesses, but if so he should have specified that. I didn’t assume that, and in this scenario the AI could be out in the open so to speak. Regardless, it wouldn’t change the conclusion. Humans can covertly control businesses.
Yes, I would also like to see a better explanation.
It’s a bit of a tradeoff, seeing as botnets can run 24⁄7, but people play games relatively rarely.
Ok, let me make a stronger statement then: it is not possible to scale any arbitrary computation in a linear fashion simply by adding more nodes. At some point, the cost of coordinating distributed tasks to one more node becomes higher than the benefit of adding the node to begin with. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, network bandwidth and latency will become your limiting factor relatively quickly.
How will the AI acquire those data centers ? Would it have enough power in its conventional botnet (or game-net, if you prefer) to “take over all human businesses” and cause them to be built ? Current botnets are nowhere near powerful enough for that—otherwise human spammers would have done it already.
My bad, I missed that reference. In this case, yes, the AI would have no problem with unleashing Global Thermonuclear War (unless there was some easier way to remove the oxygen).
I still don’t understand how this reversible computing will work in the absence of a superconducting environment—which would require quite a bit of energy to run. Note that if you want to run this reversible computation on a global botnet, you will have to cool teansoceanic cables… and I’m not sure what you’d do with satellite links.
My point is that, a). if the AI can’t get the computing resources it needs out of the space it has, then it will never accomplish its goals, and b). there’s an upper limit on how much computing you can extract out of a cubic meter of space, regardless of what technology you’re using. Thus, c). if the AI requires more resources that could conceivably be obtained, then it’s doomed. Some of the tasks you outline—such as “take over all human businesses”—will likely require more resources than can be obtained.
The botnet makes the AI a criminal from the beginning, putting it into an atagonistic relationship. A better strategy would probably entail benign benevolence and cooperation with humans.
I agree with that subchain but we don’t need to get in to that. I’ve actually argued that track here myself (parallelization constraints as a limiter on hard takeoffs).
But that’s all beside the point. This scenario I presented is a more modest takeoff. When I described the AI as becoming a civilization unto itself, I was attempting to imply that it was composed of many individual minds. Human social organizations can be considered forms of superintelligences, and they show exactly how to scale in the face of severe bandwidth and latency constraints.
The internet supports internode bandwidth that is many orders of magnitude faster than slow human vocal communication, so the AI civilization can employ a much wider set of distribution strategies.
Buy them? Build them? Perhaps this would be more fun if we switched out of the adversial stance or switched roles.
Quote me, but don’t misquote me. I actually said:
“Having cloned its core millions of times over, the AI is now a civilization unto itself. From there it expands into all of the businesses of man, quickly dominating many of them.”
The AI group sends the billions earned in video games to enter the microchip business, build foundries and data centers, etc. The AI’s have tremendous competitive advantages even discounting superintellligence—namely no employee costs. Humans can not hope to compete.
Yes reversible computing requires superconducting environments, no this does not necessarily increase energy costs for a data center for two reasons: 1. data centers already need cooling to dump all the waste heat generated by bit erasure. 2. Cooling cost to maintain the temperatural differential scales with surface area, but total computing power scales with volume.
If you question how reversible computing could work in general, first read the primary literature in that field to at least understand what they are proposing.
I should point out that there is an alternative tech path which will probably be the mainstream route to further computational gains in the decades ahead.
Even if you can’t shrink circuits further or reduce their power consumption, you could still reduce their manufacturing cost and build increasingly larger stacked 3D circuits where only a tiny portion of the circuitry is active at any one time. This is in fact how the brain solves the problem. It has a mass of circuitry equivalent to a large supercomputer (roughly a petabit) but runs on only 20 watts. The smallest computational features in the brain are slightly larger than our current smallest transistors. So it does not achieve its much greater power effeciency by using much more miniaturization.
I see. In this particular scenario one AI node is superhumanly intelligent, and can run on a single gaming PC of the time.
I don’t think that humans will take kindly to the AI using their GPUs for its own purposes instead of the games they paid for, even if the games do work. People get upset when human-run game companies do similar things, today.
If the AI can scale and perform about as well as human organizations, then why should we fear it ? No human organization on Earth right now has the power to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, and I have trouble imagining how any organization could acquire this power before the others take it down. You say that “the internet supports internode bandwidth that is many orders of magnitude faster than slow human vocal communication”, but this would only make the AI organization faster, not necessarily more effective. And, of course, if the AI wants to deal with the human world in some way—for example, by selling it games—it will be bottlenecked by human speeds.
My mistake; I thought that by “dominate human businesses” you meant something like “hack its way to the top”, not “build an honest business that outperforms human businesses”. That said:
How are they going to build all those foundries and data centers, then ? At some point, they still need to move physical bricks around in meatspace. Either they have to pay someone to do it, or… what ?
There’s a big difference between cooling to room temperature, and cooling to 63K. I have other objections to your reversible computing silver bullet, but IMO they’re a bit off-topic (though we can discuss them if you wish). But here’s another potentially huge problem I see with your argument:
Which time are we talking about ? I have a pretty sweet gaming setup at home (though it’s already a year or two out of date), and there’s no way I could run a superintelligence on it. Just how much computing power do you think it would take to run a transhuman AI ?
Do people mind if this is done openly and only when they are playing the game itself? My guess would strongly be no. The fact that there are volunteer distributed computing systems would also suggest that it isn’t that difficult to get people to free up their extra clock cycles.
Yeah, the “voluntary” part is key to getting humans to like you and your project. On the flip side, illicit botnets are quite effective at harnessing “spare” (i.e., owned by someone else) computing capacity; so, it’s a bit of a tradeoff.
The AIs develop as NPCs in virtual worlds, which humans take no issue with today. This is actually a very likely path to developing AGI, as it’s an application area where interim experiments can pay rent, so to speak.
I never said or implied merely “about as well”. Human verbal communication bandwidth is at most a few measly kilobits per second.
The discussion centered around lowering earth’s oxygen content, and the obvious implied solution is killing earthlife, not giant suction machines. I pointed out that nuclear weapons are a likely route to killing earthlife. There are at least two human organizations that have the potential to accomplish this already, so your trouble in imagining the scenario may indicate something other than what you intended.
Only in movies are AI overlords constrained to only employing robots. If human labor is the cheapest option, then they can simply employ humans. On the other hand, once we have superintelligence then advanced robotics is almost a given.
After coming up to speed somewhat on AI/AGI literature in the last year or so, I reached the conclusion that we could run an AGI on a current cluster of perhaps 10-100 high end GPUs of today, or say roughly one circa 2020 GPU.
I think this is one of many possible paths, though I wouldn’t call any of them “likely” to happen—at least, not in the next 20 years. That said, if the AI is an NPC in a game, then of course it makes sense that it would harness the game for its CPU cycles; that’s what it was built to do, after all.
Right, but my point is that communication is just one piece of the puzzle. I argue that, even if you somehow enabled us humans to communicate at 50 MB/s, our organizations would not become 400000 times more effective.
Which ones ? I don’t think that even WW3, given our current weapon stockpiles, would result in a successful destruction of all plant life. Animal life, maybe, but there are quite a few plants and algae out there. In addition, I am not entirely convinced that an AI could start WW3; keep in mind that it can’t hack itself total access to all nuclear weapons, because they are not connected to the Internet in any way.
But then they lose their advantage of having zero employee costs, which you brought up earlier. In addition, whatever plans the AIs plan on executing become bottlenecked by human speeds.
It depends on what you mean by “advanced”, though in general I think I agree.
I am willing to bet money that this will not happen, assuming that by “high end” you mean something like Nvidia’s Geforce 680 GTX. What are you basing your estimate on ?
There’s a third route to improvement- software improvement, and it is a major one. For example, between 1988 and 2003, the efficiency of linear programming solvers increased by a factor of about 40 million, of which a factor of around 40,000 was due to software and algorithmic improvement. Citation and further related reading(pdf) However, if commonly believed conjectures are correct (such as L, P, NP, co-NP, PSPACE and EXP all being distinct) , there are strong fundamental limits there as well. That doesn’t rule out more exotic issues (e.g. P != NP but there’s a practical algorithm for some NP-complete with such small constants in the run time that it is practically linear, or a similar context with a quantum computer). But if our picture of the major complexity classes is roughly correct, there should be serious limits to how much improvement can do.
Software improvements can be used by humans in the form of expert systems (tools), which will diminish the relative advantage of AGI. Humans will be able to use an AGI’s own analytic and predictive algorithms in the form of expert systems to analyze and predict its actions.
Take for example generating exploits. Seems strange to assume that humans haven’t got specialized software able to do similarly, i.e. automatic exploit finding and testing.
Any AGI would basically have to deal with equally capable algorithms used by humans. Which makes the world much more unpredictable than it already is.
Any human-in-the-loop system can be grossly outclassed because of Amdahl’s law. A human managing a superintilligence that thinks 1000X faster, for example, is a misguided, not-even-wrong notion. This is also not idle speculation, an early constrained version of this scenario is already playing out as we speak in finacial markets.
What I meant is that if an AGI was in principle be able to predict the financial markets (I doubt it), then many human players using the same predictive algorithms will considerably diminish the efficiency with which an AGI is able to predict the market. The AGI would basically have to predict its own predictive power acting on the black box of human intentions.
And I don’t think that Amdahl’s law really makes a big dent here. Since human intention is complex and probably introduces unpredictable factors. Which is as much of a benefit as it is a slowdown, from the point of view of a competition for world domination.
Another question with respect to Amdahl’s law is what kind of bottleneck any human-in-the-loop would constitute. If humans used an AGI’s algorithms as expert systems on provided data sets in combination with a army of robot scientists, how would static externalized agency / planning algorithms (humans) slow down the task to the point of giving the AGI a useful advantage? What exactly would be 1000X faster in such a case?
The HFT robotraders operate on millisecond timescales. There isn’t enough time for a human to understand, let alone verify, the agent’s decisions. There are no human players using the same predictive algorithms operating in this environment.
Now if you zoom out to human timescales, then yes there are human-in-the-loop trading systems. But as HFT robotraders increase in intelligence, they intrude on that domain. If/when general superintelligence becomes cheap and fast enough, the humans will no longer have any role.
If an autonomous superintelligent AI is generating plans complex enough that even a team of humans would struggle to understand given weeks of analysis, and the AI is executing those plans in seconds or milliseconds, then there is little place for a human in that decision loop.
To retain control, a human manager will need to grant the AGI autonomy on larger timescales in proportion to the AGI’s greater intelligence and speed, giving it bigger and more abstract hierachical goals. As an example, eventually you get to a situation where the CEO just instructs the AGI employees to optimize the bank account directly.
Compare the two options as complete computational systems: human + semi-autonomous AGI vs autonomous AGI. Human brains take on the order of seconds to make complex decisions, so in order to compete with autonomous AGIs, the human will have to either 1.) let the AGI operate autonomously for at least seconds at a time, or 2.) suffer a speed penalty where the AGI sits idle, waiting for the human response.
For example, imagine a marketing AGI creates ads, each of which may take a human a minute to evaluate (which is being generous). If the AGI thinks 3600X faster than human baseline, and a human takes on the order of hours to generate an ad, it would generate ads in seconds. The human would not be able to keep up, and so would have to back up a level of heirarachy and grant the AI autonomy over entire ad campaigns, and more realistically, the entire ad company. If the AGI is truly superintelligent, it can come to understand what the human actually wants at a deeper level, and start acting on anticipated and even implied commands. In this scenario I expect most human managers would just let the AGI sort out ‘work’ and retire early.
Well, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote and believe that the economic case for a fast transition from tools to agents is strong.
I also don’t disagree that an AGI could take over the world if in possession of enough resources and tools like molecular nanotechnology. I even believe that a sub-human-level AGI would be sufficient to take over if handed advanced molecular nanotechnology.
Sadly these discussions always lead to the point where one side assumes the existence of certain AGI designs with certain superhuman advantages, specific drives and specific enabling circumstances. I don’t know of anyone who actually disagrees that such AGI’s, given those specific circumstances, would be an existential risk.
I don’t see this as so sad, if we are coming to something of a consensus on some of the sub-issues.
This whole discussion chain started (for me) with a question of the form, “given a superintelligence, how could it actually become an existential risk?”
I don’t necessarily agree with the implied LW consensus on the liklihood of various AGI designs, specific drives, specific circumstances, or most crucially, the actual distribution over future AGI goals, so my view may be much closer to yours than this thread implies.
But my disagreements are mainly over details. I foresee the most likely AGI designs and goal systems as being vaguely human-like, which entails a different type of risk. Basically I’m worried about AGI’s with human inspired motivational systems taking off and taking control (peacefully/economically) or outcompeting us before we can upload in numbers, and a resulting sub-optimal amount of uploading, rather than paperclippers.
Yes, human-like AGI’s are really scary. I think a fabulous fictional treatment here is ‘Blindsight’ by Peter Watts, where humanity managed to resurrect vampires. More: Gurl ner qrcvpgrq nf angheny uhzna cerqngbef, n fhcreuhzna cflpubcnguvp Ubzb trahf jvgu zvavzny pbafpvbhfarff (zber enj cebprffvat cbjre vafgrnq) gung pna sbe rknzcyr ubyq obgu nfcrpgf bs n Arpxre phor va gurve urnqf ng gur fnzr gvzr. Uhznaf erfheerpgrq gurz jvgu n qrsvpvg gung jnf fhccbfrq gb znxr gurz pbagebyynoyr naq qrcraqrag ba gurve uhzna znfgref. Ohg bs pbhefr gung’f yvxr n zbhfr gelvat gb ubyq n png nf crg. V guvax gung abiry fubjf zber guna nal bgure yvgrengher ubj qnatrebhf whfg n yvggyr zber vagryyvtrapr pna or. Vg dhvpxyl orpbzrf pyrne gung uhznaf ner whfg yvxr yvggyr Wrjvfu tveyf snpvat n Jnssra FF fdhnqeba juvyr oryvrivat gurl’yy tb njnl vs gurl bayl pybfr gurve rlrf.
That fictional treatment is interesting to the point of me actually looking up the book. But ..
The future is scary. Human-like AGI’s should not intrinsically be more scary than the future, accelerated.
Nitpick: you mean “optimize shareholder value directly.” Keeping the account balances at an appropriate level is the CFO’s job.
Precisely. It is then a civilization, not some single monolithic entity. The consumer PCs have a lot if internal computing power and comparatively very low inter-node bandwidth and huge inter-node lag, entirely breaking any relation to the ‘orthogonality thesis’, up to the point that the p2p intelligence protocols may more plausibly have to forbid destruction or manipulation (via second guessing which is a waste of computing power) of intelligent entities. Keep in mind that human morality is, too, a p2p intelligence protocol allowing us to cooperate. Keep in mind also that humans are computing resources you can ask to solve problems for you (all you need is to implement interface), while Jupiter clearly isn’t.
The nuclear war is very strongly against interests of the intelligence that sits on home computers, obviously.
(I’m assuming for sake of argument that intelligence actually had the will to do the conquering of the internet rather than being just as content with not actually running for real)