Lol @ everyone imagining that they (baselines) would be able to discern the motives and actions of a superintelligent anything.
Or super intelligent yogurt
You really want to give any power over yourself and others to the bias amplification machine?
Most CEO jobs and a majority of upper management but those will be the last jobs to be automated
- You can’t have unbiased AI without unbiased training data.
- You can’t have unbiased training data without unbiased humans.
- unbiased humans don’t exist.
The best use case I can think of for “A.I” is an absolute PRIVACY NIGHTMARE (so set that aside for a moment) but I think its the absolute best example.
Traffic and traffic lights. If every set of lights had cameras to track licence plates, cross reference home addresses and travel times for regular trips for literally every vehicle on the road. Variable speed limit signs on major roads and an unbiased “A.I” whose one goal is to make everyones regular trips take as short an amount of time as possible by controlling everything.
If you can make 1,000,000 cars make their trips 5% more efficiently thats like 50,000 cars worth of emisions. Not to mention real world time savings for people.
If you want AI agents that benefit humanity, you need biased training data and or a bias inducing training process. E.g. an objective like “Improve humanity in an ethical manner” (don’t pin me down on that, just a simple example).
For example, even choosing a real environment over a tailored simulated one is already a bias in training data, even though you want to deploy the AI agent in a real setting. That’s what you want. Bias can be beneficial. Also if we think about ethical reasoning. An AI agent won’t know what ethics are and which are commonly preferred, if you don’t introduce such a bias.
show your work. 1 especially seems suspect. Especially since many AIs are not trained on content like you are imagining, but rather trains itself through experimentation and adversarial networks.
Even how it trains itself can be biased based on what its instructions are.
Yes, and? If you write a bad fitness function, you get an AI that doesn’t do what you want. You’re just saying, human-written software can have bugs.
You’re just saying, human-written software can have bugs.
That’s pretty much exactly the point they’re making. Humans create the training data. Humans aren’t perfect, and therefore the AI training data cannot be perfect. The AI will always make mistakes and have biases as long as it’s being trained on human data.
Every sci fi work : oh no, the technology is bad
Reality : the assholes using the tool are making it do bad things
There’s always assholes and they are always making it do bad things, so the distinction isn’t even there. If you don’t plan for assholes using the tool to try and do bad things, you’re making bad technology
you’re right, ban fire and knives because they allow arson and murder.
I do think that the best government would be one run by AI.
I do not think the AIs we currently have could run a government, though.
It wouldn’t have the mandate of the people. It wouldn’t last very long. I think sortition or parliament could work. Long as it’s democratic. It’s still a huge leap from how the US does things
It’s weird to hold the belief that AI won’t oppress us while showing it that it’s fine to oppress animals as long as you’re smarter
was the ai trained on reddit commenters? just asking.
Literally the plot of every sci-fi show with an “overseer”.
Do you have time to talk about our Lord and Saviour Samaritan?
Loved that show.
That’s just what they want us to think! /s 😜
Wait a minute… oh no no no no no no, that is what they want
to sell usus to think! (as they game the system and control the AI, no /s no cap!)
Absolutely.
Every time I hear someone question the safety of self-driving cars, I know they’ve never been to Philadelphia or NJ.
I mean, the US really isn’t a good example for road safety. Even Germany got better drivers, and we like to drive 140-200 kmh. It’s a matter of good education, standards and regulations (as always).
In the end self-driving public transport is the way the future of mobility should primarily be imho. Self-driving cars… as long as there always is a steering wheel in case of unexpected circumstances or to move around backyards and stuff it’ll probably me fine. Just don’t throw technical solutions at cultural problems and expect them to be fixed.
I mean, the US really isn’t a good example for road safety. Even Germany got better drivers, and we like to drive 140-200 kmh. It’s a matter of good education, standards and regulations (as always).
I didn’t want to believe it as well, but it seems to be factually correct, as per this wonderful Wikipedia list.
Ah yes the good regulations on german public roads
They’re so well regulated that they can safely drive on roads with no speed limit, whereas the US for example has pretty low limits and multiple times the fatal crashes (proportionally to population)
This. Of course it would be even better with limits on the Autobahn, and in fact a majority of people are in favour of such a change (especially if the limit is at 130-140). Our governments are in the pocket of the car industry though, politicians act as if our whole freedom is endangered talking about it (now where do we know that from? 🙃). Things can always be better, but A.I. definitely doesn’t improve an absolutely shitty mobility system like the US has (which is basically nothing but cars). If anything it will make shit even more… off the rails. 😏
Yeah but then what’s the point of visiting Germany as a tourist slash petrolhead?
Jokes aside, I’m of the opinion that existing freedoms are generally best left alone. Besides, Germany has a lower rate than Estonia and we have much lower speed limits. 120 on newly built separated highways in the summer (actually these might have 120 with good conditions in winter too - they have digital signage), 110 on old separated highways and in October or so, they go and collect all the 110 signs and replace them with 100… And up to 90 everywhere else.
There’s a good chance the limitless autobahn is actually part of what makes German numbers so good. It just requires stricter training and policing, stricter TÜV and for people to always check their mirrors before switching lanes. And just good lane discipline in general. You don’t get that in a lot of Europe. People switch lanes whenever because they’re going 10 over the speed limit and can’t possibly imagine someone else is going faster than them, potentially very close behind, in the other lane.
PS: traffic fun fact: Did you know that in Latvia, a two lane undivided highway has up to four active lanes? There’s the law abiding citizen lanes (known as shoulders in the west) and the BMW/Audi lanes in the middle, marked by the white lines.
There’s a good chance the limitless autobahn is actually part of what makes German numbers so good
There’s a chance, but I don’t think you argued why would it be a good chance.
It just requires stricter training and policing, stricter TÜV and for people to always check their mirrors before switching lanes.
Changing lanes and overtaking are always some of the most risky moments. It’s always going to be much much safer if everybody drives the same speed vs. if you have to dodge because people are going 250 km/h for lulz. If you have the stricter training and policing, you still can improve safety by introducing speed limits.
If you have the stricter training and policing, you still can improve safety by introducing speed limits.
What is going to be the excuse for keeping the stricter training and near authoritarian policing if there are speed limits? Nearly no other country is this anal about who can and can’t drive on their roads. Maybe Singapore, since they require you to be a millionaire to even get a car.
and for people to always check their mirrors before switching lanes.
Oh, I wish. I don’t think your expectation of adapted behaviour is correct on a societal level, and given how many deaths could’ve prevented by a speed limit… people drastically overestimate their abilities and underestimate the speed and force of impact all the time. If the road is going slow right now or someone missed their exit people will still drive like maniacs. Not to mention that there’s also other good reasons for a speed limit, environmental and economical (with ICE cars you don’t immediately feel how much more you’re paying in money and convenience/time, but EVs will tell you that immediately = more CO², more costs individually and for society, less sane car purchases).
I don’t think strict TÜV, training etc. is connected to a lack of speed limit either. It’s more of a cultural thing in society, and of course to politics and how well people are off.
I get your opinion about preserving existing freedoms. It’s always a balance, however in this case I think this personal freedom to go fast is in no relation to other people’s right to save travel, and future generations’ right of well-being.
The emissions part I’ll have to agree on, but safety? Germany is literally among the safest nations to drive in. There’s not much lower you can go.
As ICE vehicles get phased out, people will naturally start driving fast less often. EVs force you to stop for much longer when you run out of charge. Driving 2x as fast means making 4x as many stops and the stops aren’t 3 minutes with an EV.
I mean TBF, they don’t trust the average person in New Jersey to handle a petrol pump—so much so that it’s legally prohibited.
I’m not at all surprised that they shouldn’t be trusted with the vehicle itself, given that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict
If nearly perfect computers controlled government.
Agreed
