AI is good at well-defined strategy games, but (so far) bad at understanding and integrating real-world constraints. I suspect that there are already significant efforts to use narrow AI to help humans with strategic planning, but that these remain secret. For an AGI to defeat that sort of human-computer combination would require considerably superhuman capabilities, which means without an intelligence explosion it would take a great deal of time and resources.
If AI will be able to use humans as outsourced form of intuition like in Mechanical Turk, it may be able to play such games with much less own intelligence.
When I read “Cambridge Analytica isn’t the only company that could pull this off—but it is the most powerful right now.” I immediately think “citation needed”.
Eric Schmidt funded multiple companies to provide technology to get Hillary elected.
But in fact, I don’t want to derail the discussion about AI’s possible decisive advantage in the future in the conspiracy looking discussion about past elections, which I mentioned as a possible example of strategic games, but not as the fact proving that such AI actually exists.
That argument feels circular in nature. You believe that Trump won because of a powerful computer model, simply because Trump won and he was supported by a computer model.
One the other hand, you have a tech billionaire who’s gathering top programmers to fight. On the other hand, you have a company that has to be told by the daughter of that tech-billionaire what software they should use.
Who’s press person said they worked for the leave-campaign and who’s CEO is currently on the record for never having worked for the leave-campaign, neither paid nor unpaid.
But Cambridge’s psychographic models proved unreliable in the Cruz presidential campaign, according to Rick Tyler, a former Cruz aide, and another consultant involved in the campaign. In one early test, more than half the Oklahoma voters whom Cambridge had identified as Cruz supporters actually favored other candidates. The campaign stopped using Cambridge’s data entirely after the South Carolina primary.
There’s a lot of irony in the fact that Cambridge Analytica seems to be better at telling spin about its amazing abilities of political manipulation in an untargeted way, than they are actually at helping political campaign.
I just saw on scout.ai’s about page that they see themselves as being in the science fiction business. Maybe I should be less hard on them.
I want to underline again that the fact that I discuss a possibility doesn’t mean that I believe in it. The winning is evidence of intelligent power but given prior about its previous failures, it may be not strong evidence.
AI is good at well-defined strategy games, but (so far) bad at understanding and integrating real-world constraints. I suspect that there are already significant efforts to use narrow AI to help humans with strategic planning, but that these remain secret. For an AGI to defeat that sort of human-computer combination would require considerably superhuman capabilities, which means without an intelligence explosion it would take a great deal of time and resources.
If AI will be able to use humans as outsourced form of intuition like in Mechanical Turk, it may be able to play such games with much less own intelligence.
Such game may resemble Trump’s election campaign, where cyberweapons, fake news and internet memes was used by some algorithm. There was some speculation about it: https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine
We already see superhuman performance in war-simulating games, but nothing like it in AI self-improving.
Mildly superhuman capabilities may be reached without intelligence explosion by the low-level accumulation of hardware, training and knowledge.
When I read “Cambridge Analytica isn’t the only company that could pull this off—but it is the most powerful right now.” I immediately think “citation needed”.
Eric Schmidt funded multiple companies to provide technology to get Hillary elected.
There are many programs which play Go, but only one currently with superhuman performance.
On the Go side, the program with the superhuman performance is run by Eric Schmidt’s company.
What makes you think that Eric Schmidt’s people aren’t the best in the other domain as well?
The fact that H lost?
But in fact, I don’t want to derail the discussion about AI’s possible decisive advantage in the future in the conspiracy looking discussion about past elections, which I mentioned as a possible example of strategic games, but not as the fact proving that such AI actually exists.
That argument feels circular in nature. You believe that Trump won because of a powerful computer model, simply because Trump won and he was supported by a computer model.
One the other hand, you have a tech billionaire who’s gathering top programmers to fight. On the other hand, you have a company that has to be told by the daughter of that tech-billionaire what software they should use.
Who’s press person said they worked for the leave-campaign and who’s CEO is currently on the record for never having worked for the leave-campaign, neither paid nor unpaid.
From a NYTimes article:
There’s a lot of irony in the fact that Cambridge Analytica seems to be better at telling spin about its amazing abilities of political manipulation in an untargeted way, than they are actually at helping political campaign.
I just saw on scout.ai’s about page that they see themselves as being in the science fiction business. Maybe I should be less hard on them.
I want to underline again that the fact that I discuss a possibility doesn’t mean that I believe in it. The winning is evidence of intelligent power but given prior about its previous failures, it may be not strong evidence.