If it’s that capable, it’s probably also that dangerous.
No. We already have computers that help design better airplanes etc., and they are not dangerous at all. Sewing-Machine’s question is right on.
Building machines that help us solve intelligence-bound problems (even if these problems are related to the real world, like building better airplanes) seems to be massively easier than building machines that will “understand” the existence of the real world and try to take it over for whatever reason. Evidence: we have had much success with the former task, but practically no progress on the latter. Moreover, the latter task looks very dangerous, kinda like nuclear weaponry.
Why do some people become so enamored with the singleton scenario that they can’t settle for anything less? What’s wrong with humans using “smart enough” machines to solve world hunger and such, working out any ethical issues along the way, instead of delegating the whole task to one big AI? If you think you need the singleton to protect you from some danger, what can be more dangerous than a singleton?
Why do some people become so enamored with the singleton scenario that they can’t settle for anything less? What’s wrong with humans using “smart enough” machines to solve world hunger and such, working out any ethical issues along the way, instead of delegating the whole task to one big AI?
It’s potentially dangerous, given the uncertainty about what exactly you are talking about. If it’s not dangerous, go for it.
Settling for something less than a singleton won’t solve the problem of human-indifferent intelligence explosion.
If you think you need the singleton to protect you from some danger, what can be more dangerous than a singleton?
Another singleton, which is part of the danger in question.
No. We already have computers that help design better airplanes etc., and they are not dangerous at all. Sewing-Machine’s question is right on.
Building machines that help us solve intelligence-bound problems (even if these problems are related to the real world, like building better airplanes) seems to be massively easier than building machines that will “understand” the existence of the real world and try to take it over for whatever reason. Evidence: we have had much success with the former task, but practically no progress on the latter. Moreover, the latter task looks very dangerous, kinda like nuclear weaponry.
Why do some people become so enamored with the singleton scenario that they can’t settle for anything less? What’s wrong with humans using “smart enough” machines to solve world hunger and such, working out any ethical issues along the way, instead of delegating the whole task to one big AI? If you think you need the singleton to protect you from some danger, what can be more dangerous than a singleton?
It’s potentially dangerous, given the uncertainty about what exactly you are talking about. If it’s not dangerous, go for it.
Settling for something less than a singleton won’t solve the problem of human-indifferent intelligence explosion.
Another singleton, which is part of the danger in question.