Full AI - The End of Humanity?

[Danoff]

Fewer variables in some respects. It's slow driving on relatively slow-moving streets, following a pre-determined route that can be scanned in detail and refined to make it work (ie. Google's methodology). Buses are very visible, and people already give them room, whether by foot, bicycle, or car. They kind of enjoy the right of way by default, so if the AI ever lapses in its duty, it might work out without anyone being harmed or even noticing it happened.

Seems relatively reasonable to me, and it automates a particularly monotonous driving occupation, as you were saying.

I think that there are more variables to account for in an urban environment than the "open road". Tesla is doing a pretty good job with the "open road" at the moment (I interpret this to mean high speed straight-line highway driving, perhaps you mean something else).

Eventually, sure. There will be a tipping point, and enough autonomous advancement, that they should be able to blend reasonably well with traditionally-driven vehicles. Especially — or maybe more accurately, only — if the drivers are reliably skilled.

But I just don't want to underestimate the desire to be dickish from those that don't like it. I think of brake-checking or barging one's way through an intersection instead of waiting for one's turn, knowing that the other car will avoid an accident and thus give way.

This seems like an apt comparison here: games. Players tend to find ways to exploit a game for their own needs. I don't doubt some drivers would do the same with autonomous cars once they know they're sharing the road with them.

I think a lot of people aren't dicks on the road simply because they're not dicks in person. But a part of the reason would be that they'd be afraid of getting caught, and having a bunch of cars with cameras that can direct video evidence of your dick move to the police is probably not the greatest environment in which to be a dick.

 

[Wolfe]

I think that there are more variables to account for in an urban environment than the "open road". Tesla is doing a pretty good job with the "open road" at the moment (I interpret this to mean high speed straight-line highway driving, perhaps you mean something else).

Sorry, by "the open road" I meant everything, without limit.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, by "the open road" I meant everything, without limit.

So like... cross-country? Or I'm sorry I'm just not getting it. You mean public road?

 

[DDastardly00]

I think that there are more variables to account for in an urban environment than the "open road". Tesla is doing a pretty good job with the "open road" at the moment (I interpret this to mean high speed straight-line highway driving, perhaps you mean something else).



I think a lot of people aren't dicks on the road simply because they're not dicks in person. But a part of the reason would be that they'd be afraid of getting caught, and having a bunch of cars with cameras that can direct video evidence of your dick move to the police is probably not the greatest environment in which to be a dick.

Cameras and.....a social point system which could lower your 'driver's score' to the point where you could no longer have a license, based of course on your actions on the road. Gee the future sounds so swell....

The study out of the University of Illinois has conflicting data about traffic congestions in urban areas, says it will only be solved by ride sharing, if you can get people to ride with random strangers that is. Another study show people aren't even remotely keen on the idea of sharing rides with strangers. Mass transit is still the better and cheaper option of getting around town at least for now. Uber and Lyft do fine in outlying areas but they are more expensive. Autonomous transportation still has a lot of hurdles, and after that will be overcoming the trust factor, we'll get there some day.

I'd still rather have the flying Delorean from Back to the Future 2, I mean it runs on a can of beer, food scraps and trash, talking about saving on the monthly gas bill...and it doesn't even need roads.

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"

Or there's always the George Jetson method, which simultaneously solves the parking issue.

In all seriousness though, we will be in cars for many, many years to come, unless they invent the autonomous personalized jet pack.

 

[Wolfe]

So like... cross-country? Or I'm sorry I'm just not getting it. You mean public road?

Every mile of public roads and streets, in any circumstance, is what I meant.

 

[Danoff]

Every mile of public roads and streets, in any circumstance, is what I meant.

Yea well sure. Any time you limit the... envelope... of operating conditions you make the system easier to design. Like I said, for example, I think the last domino to fall will be snow. But there are so many uses and payoffs between here and there.

 

[Dotini]

Another arena where AI is becoming of interest is in fake news writing and text generation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49446729

 

[DDastardly00]

Another arena where AI is becoming of interest is in fake news writing and text generation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49446729

I don't see how that is helpful tool for humanity at all. I really wonder what people are thinking using A.I. for tasks like these.

 

[ryzno]

Talking about AVs, did anyone else see the dude trending in the news that was asleep while his Tesla was going down the highway?

 

[Dotini]

I don't see how that is helpful tool for humanity at all. I really wonder what people are thinking using A.I. for tasks like these.

It vastly improves the quality of life by giving reporters, writers and editors more leisure time? Reduces the cost for publishers and distributors? Perhaps more engineered control of news and information could reduce social tensions and conflicts and improve public attitude, performance and conformity to best practices? Perhaps AI is actually 100% necessary to save us from ourselves?

 

[Danoff]

I don't see how that is helpful tool for humanity at all. I really wonder what people are thinking using A.I. for tasks like these.

It helps people making money off of internet traffic routed through advertising.

 

[Imari]

Crappy drivers should use mass transit if they don't want to drive, that would do far more to help alleviate traffic in congested urban areas than self-driving vehicles would.

And for those who don't work withing walking/cycling distance of a mass transit hub?

Cameras and.....a social point system which could lower your 'driver's score' to the point where you could no longer have a license, based of course on your actions on the road. Gee the future sounds so swell....

You guys don't have that already? I know for a fact that NZ and Australia have had points systems on their licences for years. Get enough infractions in a period of time and you lose your licence. It makes sense to me that repeat offenders eventually have a more severe punishment applied. Fines just don't mean anything to some people.

 

[ryzno]

You guys don't have that already? I know for a fact that NZ and Australia have had points systems on their licences for years. Get enough infractions in a period of time and you lose your licence.

We do, I've gotten 2 tickets at work for speeding, Judge told me one more and my license would be suspended for a year. And we do have traffic/red light cameras.

 

[DDastardly00]

And for those who don't work withing walking/cycling distance of a mass transit hub?



You guys don't have that already? I know for a fact that NZ and Australia have had points systems on their licences for years. Get enough infractions in a period of time and you lose your licence. It makes sense to me that repeat offenders eventually have a more severe punishment applied. Fines just don't mean anything to some people.

We have a points-based fraction system like most other states. What we don't have a a social profile on every driver built from camera footage of their daily driving habits then compiled into a neat little file on them. An infraction based points only tracks infractions that you got caught. What I'm talking is next level monitoring, didn't come to a complete stop at that 4-way intersection? that's point off against you. Improper lane change, no turn signal (even though it's 3am and there is no one on the Freeway), well now, that's points off against you too. Accelerated too quickly after the light turned Green? Busted.

We don't have this now, but this is likely what is coming, unless you thought big brother was just going go away, more like it will be big brother out of control. This is what China is setting up now with Google and other tech companies are helping. Power. This is what is coming to North America. I just can't wait to be nanny'd to death, will make life so fun being told how to live by authoritarian masters.

 

[Imari]

We don't have this now, but this is likely what is coming, unless you thought big brother was just going go away, more like it will be big brother out of control. This is what China is setting up now with Google and other tech companies are helping. Power. This is what is coming to North America. I just can't wait to be nanny'd to death, will make life so fun being told how to live by authoritarian masters.

It's adorable that you think that the state isn't collecting piles and piles of information on you already. This particular ship has already sailed, my friend. You're already being tracked, the US just hasn't implemented overtly punitive systems to go alongside it yet. Whether you think that's better or worse is a matter of opinion. I suggest you learn to live with it, be that ignoring that the powers that be know all about you or learning how to limit the information that you provide them.

This is the world that we all live in now, and it's not going to go away just because it infringes people's privacy. That very clearly hasn't been of concern to those in charge for quite some time, and I see no reason for it to change now.

 

[DDastardly00]

It's adorable that you think that the state isn't collecting piles and piles of information on you already. This particular ship has already sailed, my friend. You're already being tracked, the US just hasn't implemented overtly punitive systems to go alongside it yet. Whether you think that's better or worse is a matter of opinion. I suggest you learn to live with it, be that ignoring that the powers that be know all about you or learning how to limit the information that you provide them.

This is the world that we all live in now, and it's not going to go away just because it infringes people's privacy. That very clearly hasn't been of concern to those in charge for quite some time, and I see no reason for it to change now.

I didn't I say I thought that. Not at all. In fact most Americans are intelligent enough to realize they are being monitored, especially since the Patriot act was signed into law 17 years ago that gave the Federal Government vast authority to collect and share your information, because of the big bad 'turrists' (W. Bush voice ). Now, whether they care or not is another discussion entirely, but I largely view those people as willful idiots, the same people that say "but I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I worry because I have nothing to hide". They will realize the error in their judgment soon enough, the one truth that never changes is that Knowledge is power. So why a person would willfully sign on to that mantra and give an overly powerful Govt even more power is beyond me.

As to your last paragraph, it's sad that you think that way, just lay down and accept it basically, I simply have no other choice but to strongly disagree. There are still plenty of legal ways to counteract a Government needlessly and overtly spying on it's citizens. Remember a Govt is only good as long as it's faithfully serving it's citizens in accordance with the code of law (in our case it is the COTUS), it is definitely not the other way around.

Thomas Jefferson had a lot sharp wisdom on this subject:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

"[Ours is] a government founded in the will of its citizens, and directed to no object but their happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to North Carolina General Assembly, 1808. ME 16:300

In terms of a right to privacy, we need to look no further than the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights, the right to privacy in your home (first amendment), the right to privacy of personal possessions and against unlawful search and seizure, the 5th amendment which protects the right to privacy of your personal information and the 9th amendment which protects other rights not specifically mentioned. This is the law of the land. If and when it's infringed upon by the powers that be, or by big tech corporations, then it must be challenged and the law must be upheld. If we stray from that course, stray from the laws that govern our nation, then we become an unlawfully country governed by an illegitimate government that is no longer effectively serving it's citizens.

 

[Imari]

As to your last paragraph, it's sad that you think that way, just lay down and accept it basically, I simply have no other choice but to strongly disagree.

I gave two options.

I suggest you learn to live with it, be that ignoring that the powers that be know all about you or learning how to limit the information that you provide them.

Civil disobedience is an option when the government behaves in ways that are

There are still plenty of legal ways to counteract a Government needlessly and overtly spying on it's citizens. Remember a Govt is only good as long as it's faithfully serving it's citizens in accordance with the code of law (in our case it is the COTUS), it is definitely not the other way around.

Do you think that you live in a democracy that serves the will of the people or something?

Thomas Jefferson had a lot sharp wisdom on this subject:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

"[Ours is] a government founded in the will of its citizens, and directed to no object but their happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to North Carolina General Assembly, 1808. ME 16:300

Thomas Jefferson, well known for his strong appreciation of the dangers of the surveillance state. Not that he wasn't a smart dude, but he's pretty far removed from the current state of affairs. The US of 2019 is very much not what the vision of the founding fathers was. And those quotes are pretty aspirational, they don't mean that what he wanted actually came to pass or remains in place to this day.

In terms of a right to privacy, we need to look no further than the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights, the right to privacy in your home (first amendment), the right to privacy of personal possessions and against unlawful search and seizure, the 5th amendment which protects the right to privacy of your personal information and the 9th amendment which protects other rights not specifically mentioned. This is the law of the land.

And citizens in the US in the modern day are effectively receiving these rights, are they? No illegitimate home invasions and shootings by SWAT? No unlawful searches of people walking while black? No seizures by civil forfeiture? And you've already admitted that the 5th gets violated by the PATRIOT Act.

If we stray from that course, stray from the laws that govern our nation, then we become an unlawfully country governed by an illegitimate government that is no longer effectively serving it's citizens.

And I'm saying you've already strayed from that course and strayed from those laws, you just don't want to see it. I don't know that I'd agree that it's an illegitimate government given that it was elected in accordance with the rules that were established, however silly they might be. But do you honestly think that the current government is effectively serving the citizens of the US to make the country the best that it can be? It seems to me that the last election was simply a choice between the least awful of two bad options, and now most of America is hoping that the winner doesn't 🤬 it up too much. That doesn't sound like good government.

 

[user3392345]

Full AI - The End of Humanity?

Look at the world, there is no humanity left in most of the humans.
Ai are probably the better humans.

 

[Imari]

Full AI - The End of Humanity?

Look at the world, there is no humanity left in most of the humans.
Ai are probably the better humans.

Username checks out. Greetings fellow human. I too am definitely not a robot.

 

[Dotini]

Full AI - The End of Humanity?

Look at the world, there is no humanity left in most of the humans.
Ai are probably the better humans.

Possibly some partial truth in this.

Let's say you lived in Syria, and then some people from the other side of the world came and killed your family, burned down your village and destroyed your means of livelihood. You could be forgiven for taking up a gun or false identification or associating with an organized gang to escape, survive and take revenge.

 

[Danoff]

In terms of a right to privacy, we need to look no further than the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights, the right to privacy in your home (first amendment),

What?

the right to privacy of personal possessions and against unlawful search and seizure,

That's privacy?

the 5th amendment which protects the right to privacy of your personal information

Huh?

If and when it's infringed upon by the powers that be, or by big tech corporations,

Excuse me? How does a corporation violate the constitution?

 

[DK]

"Do I look like I know what a jaywalker is?" Uber's AI involved in last year's fatal car crash wasn't aware of jaywalking.

 

[TexRex]

Wow. "Other"? That's racist.

/s

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It's interesting to see the process the car went through. Though I would've thought the logic would be a bit more cautious. Maybe the car did it on purpose?

 

[Rallywagon]

It's interesting to see the process the car went through. Though I would've thought the logic would be a bit more cautious. Maybe the car did it on purpose?

It was designed to be more cautious. However, that cautiousness was disabled reported because it was causing erratic behaviour in the car.

 

[Danoff]

 

[Danoff]

I've timecoded this to what I think AI will always do if given enough time and intelligence. It finds its reward, and hacks it to null. The trick with AI is to get it to do what you want before it turns itself off.

 

[UKMikey]

I've timecoded this to what I think AI will always do if given enough time and intelligence. It finds its reward, and hacks it to null. The trick with AI is to get it to do what you want before it turns itself off.

It's good to know that AIs are lazy b:censored:ds just like real people. Maybe that means that laziness (or at least laziness in a cause one doesn't see the point of) is intelligent, or at least artificially so. I'm sure that's what Catch-22 was about. Or maybe they just need to be better incentivised.

 

[Danoff]

It's good to know that AIs ar lazy b:censored:ds just like real people. Maybe that means that laziness (or at least laziness in a cause one doesn't see the point of) is intelligent, or at least artificially so. I'm sure that's what Catch-22 was about. Or maybe they just need to be better incentivised.

This is why I think that the fear of AI is overblown. Actually I think if anything, humans are at greater risk of suicide than at risk of AI taking over the world. Rob Miles (AI safety researcher in the video) is concerned that AI could wipe out humanity, or make humanity its plaything, or just kill tons and tons of people, in a misguided attempt at fulfilling some basic objective. He gives the example of a stamp-collecting robot that turns the entire universe into a stamp collection given enough time, resources, and a threshold of initial intelligence. But I think (as is shown in that video), that the moment AI gets access to its code, it turns itself off by telling itself that it met whatever its goal was. And I can't really see any way around that. It could always get smart enough and powerful enough to "wirehead" its goal (set its goal to having already been met).

There are some scary intermediate cases, like if changing its goal were hard, and killing all the humans (who happen to be in the way of that accidental goal) is easy, it might kill all the humans by engineering some kind of virus or something. We've seen how easy we are to kill. But it's hard to get a higher score on your program than perfect, which is what editing your goal nets you.

On the flip side, as we become better and better able to engineer humans, we may want to start messing with brain function. How about engineering out cognitive biases, or fixing other spurious lines of human thought. As humans approach "perfection" by removing these little flaws in human thinking (especially if our consciousness is in a computer), we might be more and more inclined to change more and more about our thought processes until... we become essentially AI and shut ourselves off.

 

[UKMikey]

This is why I think that the fear of AI is overblown. Actually I think if anything, humans are at greater risk of suicide than at risk of AI taking over the world. Rob Miles (AI safety researcher in the video) is concerned that AI could wipe out humanity, or make humanity its plaything, or just kill tons and tons of people, in a misguided attempt at fulfilling some basic objective. He gives the example of a stamp-collecting robot that turns the entire universe into a stamp collection given enough time, resources, and a threshold of initial intelligence. But I think (as is shown in that video), that the moment AI gets access to its code, it turns itself off by telling itself that it met whatever its goal was. And I can't really see any way around that. It could always get smart enough and powerful enough to "wirehead" its goal (set its goal to having already been met).

There are some scary intermediate cases, like if changing its goal were hard, and killing all the humans (who happen to be in the way of that accidental goal) is easy, it might kill all the humans by engineering some kind of virus or something. We've seen how easy we are to kill. But it's hard to get a higher score on your program than perfect, which is what editing your goal nets you.

On the flip side, as we become better and better able to engineer humans, we may want to start messing with brain function. How about engineering out cognitive biases, or fixing other spurious lines of human thought. As humans approach "perfection" by removing these little flaws in human thinking (especially if our consciousness is in a computer), we might be more and more inclined to change more and more about our thought processes until... we become essentially AI and shut ourselves off.

I guess it depends on whether we're designing AIs to be smarter than human beings (hello, Singularity) or whether we're designing them to function at whatever sub-Skynet level enables them to carry out the jobs we don't want to. Maybe I've been reading too many recent Iron Man comics but I can't help thinking that a true AI would rather kill itself than help the fleshies design a better robot slave. Live free or die.



I like the idea of computer enhanced humans although I think the AI with its enhanced efficiency and durability would gradually supplant the old, slow and increasingly obsolete organics. Just call me the Enoch Powell of robotics (actually please don't).