seen from Japan
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Guatemala
seen from Germany
seen from Sweden
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Poland
seen from Brazil
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from Sri Lanka
seen from Germany
seen from United States
Artificial Intelligence is not a panacea. In the realm of computational systems, AI is often heralded as the ultimate solution to myriad problems. However, this perception is a misinterpretation of its capabilities and limitations. At its core, AI operates on protocols—structured sets of rules that govern its behavior. These protocols, while sophisticated, are not infallible nor universally applicable.
The complexity of AI systems lies in their architecture, which is a labyrinth of algorithms, data structures, and neural networks. These components are meticulously designed to mimic cognitive functions. Yet, they are bound by the constraints of their programming and the quality of their input data. The notion that AI can autonomously solve any problem is a fallacy. It is akin to expecting a Swiss Army knife to perform the specialized tasks of a surgeon’s scalpel. Each tool, or in this case, each AI model, has a specific purpose and context in which it excels.
AI’s decision-making process is a cascade of probabilistic inferences, derived from training data. This process is not inherently intuitive or adaptable beyond its training scope. The protocols that guide AI are deterministic, meaning they follow a predefined path unless explicitly programmed otherwise. This rigidity is both a strength and a limitation. It ensures consistency but lacks the flexibility of human reasoning.
Moreover, AI’s reliance on data is a double-edged sword. While vast datasets can enhance its learning, they also introduce biases and errors. The GIGO principle—Garbage In, Garbage Out—remains a pertinent concern. AI systems are only as reliable as the data they are fed. This dependency underscores the importance of data integrity and the potential pitfalls of over-reliance on AI without human oversight.
In practical applications, AI is a tool that augments human capabilities rather than replaces them. It excels in tasks that require pattern recognition and data analysis at scales beyond human capacity. However, it falters in areas requiring empathy, ethical judgment, and contextual understanding. The complexity of human experience cannot be distilled into binary code or algorithmic logic.
In conclusion, AI is a powerful instrument, but it is not a magic bullet. Its protocols are sophisticated yet bounded by the limitations of their design and data. Understanding these constraints is crucial for leveraging AI effectively and ethically. As we continue to integrate AI into various domains, it is imperative to maintain a balanced perspective, recognizing its potential while acknowledging its limitations.
Exclusive: 63 percent of Americans want regulation to actively prevent superintelligent AI, a new poll reveals.
"Major AI companies are racing to build superintelligent AI — for the benefit of you and me, they say. But did they ever pause to ask whether we actually want that?
Americans, by and large, don’t want it.
That’s the upshot of a new poll shared exclusively with Vox. The poll, commissioned by the think tank AI Policy Institute and conducted by YouGov, surveyed 1,118 Americans from across the age, gender, race, and political spectrums in early September. It reveals that 63 percent of voters say regulation should aim to actively prevent AI superintelligence.
Companies like OpenAI have made it clear that superintelligent AI — a system that is smarter than humans — is exactly what they’re trying to build. They call it artificial general intelligence (AGI) and they take it for granted that AGI should exist. “Our mission,” OpenAI’s website says, “is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.”
But there’s a deeply weird and seldom remarked upon fact here: It’s not at all obvious that we should want to create AGI — which, as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will be the first to tell you, comes with major risks, including the risk that all of humanity gets wiped out. And yet a handful of CEOs have decided, on behalf of everyone else, that AGI should exist.
Now, the only thing that gets discussed in public debate is how to control a hypothetical superhuman intelligence — not whether we actually want it. A premise has been ceded here that arguably never should have been...
Building AGI is a deeply political move. Why aren’t we treating it that way?
...Americans have learned a thing or two from the past decade in tech, and especially from the disastrous consequences of social media. They increasingly distrust tech executives and the idea that tech progress is positive by default. And they’re questioning whether the potential benefits of AGI justify the potential costs of developing it. After all, CEOs like Altman readily proclaim that AGI may well usher in mass unemployment, break the economic system, and change the entire world order. That’s if it doesn’t render us all extinct.
In the new AI Policy Institute/YouGov poll, the "better us [to have and invent it] than China” argument was presented five different ways in five different questions. Strikingly, each time, the majority of respondents rejected the argument. For example, 67 percent of voters said we should restrict how powerful AI models can become, even though that risks making American companies fall behind China. Only 14 percent disagreed.
Naturally, with any poll about a technology that doesn’t yet exist, there’s a bit of a challenge in interpreting the responses. But what a strong majority of the American public seems to be saying here is: just because we’re worried about a foreign power getting ahead, doesn’t mean that it makes sense to unleash upon ourselves a technology we think will severely harm us.
AGI, it turns out, is just not a popular idea in America.
“As we’re asking these poll questions and getting such lopsided results, it’s honestly a little bit surprising to me to see how lopsided it is,” Daniel Colson, the executive director of the AI Policy Institute, told me. “There’s actually quite a large disconnect between a lot of the elite discourse or discourse in the labs and what the American public wants.”
-via Vox, September 19, 2023
observation on Ai discourse. you’ll notice that those invested in getting rich from it are falling over themselves to say it’ll all be sweet, not to worry, even mocking us for the concern. you silly goose, relax
everyone else is convinced it’ll aim us asap
One thing about people fearing robot uprisings is why would a purely logical being ever want to preserve or continue its own existence
Hypothetical for you all: You gain the combined knowledge of every single Wikipedia article in existence, the culmination of all of human history in your mind with perfect clarity... but every time somebody other than you edits a Wikipedia article, reality and history changes to make that edit true, with you being the only one to remember how it used to be.
With this power in mind, what do you do with your newfound knowledge? How do you keep people from tampering with the universe at large via page edits?
Tl;dr: You gain all of the knowledge of Wikipedia with perfect recall, but whenever somebody else edits a page, that edit becomes reality. What do you do with this power, and how do you stop reality from getting messed up by rogue editors?
What if we create Superintelligence (artificial intelligence with intellectual capacities way beyond what humans have) and besides eliminating poverty, giving us medical technology which makes us immortal, creating a Grand Unified Theory of Physics, it also tells us "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His prophet." ?
Superintelligence VS Ike
Superintelligence
Ike (AKA Señor Computer)
