World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Artificial intelligence: is it that dangerous?
Ian wrote: "I heard one comment on our radio that some bright spark got a computer to write several billion tunes and copyrighted them, with the intention of bringing a law-suit against any song-writer who acc..."i don't remember the details as the moment, but there was some literary item written by a computer that was copyrighted with the rights going to the tech company that owned it. It wasn't in the USA or UK, but I don't remember where. When I had read about it, it was a very unusual situation because of the laws regarding who (and not a computer) could copyright works of art.
Lizzie wrote: "Philip wrote: "Lizzie wrote: "On a different front, what are the legal ramifications of personhood, virtual reality, digital rights, and is we upload out consciousness are we artificial intelligenc..."Did watch and enjoy Upload
Lizzie wrote: "Ian wrote: "I heard one comment on our radio that some bright spark got a computer to write several billion tunes and copyrighted them, with the intention of bringing a law-suit against any song-wr..."Doesn't stop companies owning copyright or artists selling it. Not sure if AI attempts are there yet but messing around with electronic music including computer generated patterns can give interesting tunes. E.g drum rhythms can be computer adjusted to simulate real players using algorithm and randomised micro second adjustments to timing, pitch etc.
If we learn how to preserve brain, putting it into an artificial body is an easier task. The question is whether there is such thing as soul?
Lizzie wrote: "Philip wrote: "Lizzie wrote: "On a different front, what are the legal ramifications of personhood, virtual reality, digital rights, and is we upload out consciousness are we artificial intelligenc..."The thing about uploading yourself to a server is that the process wouldn't be "cut and paste". It would be "copy and paste". This means that unless the OG you is dead, or killed in the process, there would be two versions of you with the same memories, thoughts, emotions, etc.. The only difference between the OG and CC yous would be the hardware that you're running on and experiences that occur after the copy.
Al Capone would endorse the voting possibilities of "Vote early, vote often." The various versions of you could vote and they would technically be different votes.
In Upload and a book series in which the ship computer is the former captain uploaded in LIndsay Buroker's Star Kingdom series are what was in my mind, the original people being dead was part of my "image". Since those were what came to mind, I didn't even consider a digital entity in which the original body and mind still livs. In these instances, the purpose was to extend "life" past death. Multiple copies would be like multiple clones - a different can of worms.
Lizzie wrote: "In Upload and a book series in which the ship computer is the former captain uploaded in LIndsay Buroker's Star Kingdom series are what was in my mind, the original people being dead was part of my..."But your examples aren't really life extension. They just feel like it because the OGs are dead.
For a great book to get up to speed on a the real current day promises and dangers of AI, thy the book SWARM by Guy Morris which discusses AI within cyber-security, advanced weapons, hacking and virus development and other issues. The book will address true world ongoing actions by Russia, China and the US. Inspired by a true story that brought the FBI to my home about a program that escaped the NSA (spy labs) at Sandia and never recaptured.
Swarm
J. wrote: "Lizzie wrote: "In Upload and a book series in which the ship computer is the former captain uploaded in LIndsay Buroker's Star Kingdom series are what was in my mind, the original people being dead..."I was thinking of it more in line with AI and would a digital entity uploaded be an AI or something else? The Amazon series, while called Upload, is treating it like an "afterlife". The paper on legal aspects raises a lot of interesting questions. Is consciousness in a silicon computer any different from one contained in organ meat? (They are not talking about the soul, just the mind.)
Science fiction often treats AIs as subordinates and slaves. Our current attitude as a society is that AIs are tools. (We don't really have true AIs at this point.) If we digitize our consciousness does that make a difference in how we perceive it?
The Silver Ship series and the Aeon 14 Universe are very much engaged in AIs having equal rights to humans rather than the approach of sci fi characters such as Hal and Skynet. If it's a digitized consciousness that is a computer AI does that change our general perception and fear that an AI is dangerous and will eventually overthrow the human race?
Guy wrote: "For a great book to get up to speed on a the real current day promises and dangers of AI, thy the book SWARM by Guy Morris which discusses AI within cyber-security, advanced weapons, hacking and vi..."Hi Guy, we have a rule to allow members to link to their own work when it is pertinent to the discussion.
The key word is pertinent. The rule is at the linked comment.
REF: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
The conversation was about AI vs Human rights, specifically for AIs that were formerly human. Your comment didn't respond to any other comment, nor did it respond to the current conversational topic or provide an interesting turn to the conversation.
Instead - it looks like a clumsy attempt to spam the thread.
I'm leaving your comment there. You're welcome to fix it's relevance.
Exactly, and the issue of AI human rights has multiple aspects. For example: under the current paradigm AI will be owned properties, and yet we see Saudi Arabia awarding citizen ship. When others refer sci-fi books, I spoke up because I think sci-fi obscures the real issues and mentioned my book as a contrast. More importantly, is the trend by governments to create lethal AI weapons where the human decision to pull the trigger is - let's say optional and may be ignored in some cases. DARPA works on an AI drone swarm tech that touches on these issues. There is an international protocol called LAWS (lethal autonomous weapons systems) that the US, Russia or China refuse to sign. Encouraging.
My key concern is that there are inadequate to no legal or ethical constraints for the billions being put into development.
While I love the sci-fi potential of AI, I find most people ignoring the current ethical dilemmas we already face.
I fear that we face a greater threat from the actual Ai developments - not because AI is evil - because the money behind the development is not transparent.
Sorry for the plug, but I dive deep into many of the moral issues involved with commercial or military AI - which is where 98% of the development money comes from.
I suppose we could debate if AI enabled weapons are good or bad. I start with the premise that they exist and there is little we as individuals can do.
If what the FBI to my home 30 years ago was alarming, I am equally concerned with the state of the art today.
Admittedly, since I write thrillers, I tend to focus on the weakness, flaw, hubris or gee, what could go wrong category. But these are the tip of the iceberg on the real, true, living today concerns with a tech most barely understand.
Does that help?
Another example: Do any of you remember Stuxnet, a CIA web-crawling virus that was designed to only turn on when it found devices with very specific serial numbers. Those devices were plutonium centrifuges in Iran and effectively shut down the Iran nuclear program for years. That technology came from the same lab with a program that escaped. Now fast forward to modern cyber -security and warfare tactics. An AI enabled internet virus could conceivably shut down the DYN server network, which would kill commerce,
communications and a share of banking using that backbone.
Well, we should stop that . . . right?
Not so simple. I used to work at Microsoft, (prior to that Oracle and IBM). We knew about the flaw in the system that enable the Solar Winds hack over a decade ago.
Cyber-security is a responsibility of each company of entity on the web. As a nation, we are only as a secure as our weakest link.
The recently rise in ransomware can be traced to an AI evaluation of the data gathered from SolarWinds. In fact, there are other undetected SolarWinds right now.
Those hacks will introduce an even greater threat - way off the radar at this stage - but it will come up - AI data poisoning.
If anyone is interested in a great read about what we are talking about, try Mindscan by Robert J. Sawyer. It is right along what we are talking about rights and who has them when it comes to artificial bodies and conscience.
Nik said: "If we learn how to preserve brain, putting it into an artificial body is an easier task. The question is whether there is such thing as soul?" You know you have a soul. That's what makes you who you are, separate from what you know. How can you even question it?
Guy wrote: "Another example: Do any of you remember Stuxnet, a CIA web-crawling virus that was designed to only turn on when it found devices with very specific serial numbers. Those devices were plutonium cen..."Leaving security vulnerabilities in place (Stuxnet, SolarWinds, Wannacry) is in my view a significant failure of the security services led by the NSA and GCHQ. because they want to exploit these vulnerabilities.
Likewise complaining about Huawei back doors to China whilst embedding tech in Cisco and others kit and hacking into data centres, fibre connections around the world. I've blogged about this recently.
AI use in these organisations is rapidly expanding to examine the retrieved data. The needle in the haystack problem is being addressed by AI led examination of the straw in multiple haystacks and analysis of the connections - CONTACT CHAINING using MAINWAY, STELLARWIND, CO_TRAVELLER and others.
The task of the security agencies is supposed to be protect but they have deliberately left vulnerabilities so they can attack others. Big Tech has often aided and abetted covered by FISA and other secret courts with little or no democratic oversight.
Philip wrote: "Guy wrote: "Another example: Do any of you remember Stuxnet, a CIA web-crawling virus that was designed to only turn on when it found devices with very specific serial numbers. Those devices were p..."I can agree with a few of your assertions. The Feds have built-in backdoors into chip designs and software for years, but now those flaws are being used against us. Exactly the point: I do not fear artificial intelligence as much as I fear natural stupidity
Philip wrote: "The task of the security agencies is supposed to be protect but they have deliberately left vulnerabilities so they can attack others. Big Tech has often aided and abetted covered by FISA and other secret courts with little or no democratic oversight..."At least in America there are plenty of protections in place. The FISA Court and others like that are every bit as regulated and watched as other courts, these just are not open to the public. These judges take their jobs very seriously and protect our rights. it is when the various players fool around that the trouble starts to happen. They are also under the various circuit and Supreme Court.
Papaphilly wrote: "Philip wrote: "The task of the security agencies is supposed to be protect but they have deliberately left vulnerabilities so they can attack others. Big Tech has often aided and abetted covered by..."I agree with Papaphilly that the risk of using AI to support some form of undefined deep state tyranny on citizens (which is fiction) the courts and laws prevent large scale abuse. I continue to point people to AI in the use of cyber security and advance espionage and weaponry that poses the greater danger - because these scenarios can escalate quickly.
In fiction, yes, the dystopic autocratic deep state using AI to control our minds will continue to haunt our literary democracy - but that is not where the actual dangers hide today.
I think this question applies to the discussion of artificial intelligence. Nik's probably still thinking about my question; meanwhile, I'll pose it to you all: Do you have a soul? Any thoughts about why think you do or do not?
Yes, we have a soul, a sense of the eternal, the spiritual and the needs beyond material. Our common soul leads to the widespread adherence by people around the globe to matters of faith. Our science has trouble testing and therefore dismisses. our soul looks beyond today, beyond ourselves, beyond our physical boundaries. Can an AI possess a soul - my response is no. An AI can process data and sometimes complex data. Once AI achieves self awareness (likely done in the lab) that is still not a soul - with a sense of morality, values, life, love or compassion.
Just to be clear, just because science says nothing about it does ot mean they dismiss it. We just don't know. We have no idea what gives rise to consciousness.If you were to follow my guidance wave interpretation of quantum mechanics (and I can't see why you would) you would see there is one weird possibility that can disconnect with your body. (every motion of any particle has an equivalent disturbance in an energy field that is not separately accessible to external probing.)
Ian wrote: "Just to be clear, just because science says nothing about it does ot mean they dismiss it. We just don't know. We have no idea what gives rise to consciousness.If you were to follow my guidance w..."
Ian, you point out the physics that support the concept of soul without ability to fully analyze or interpret the phenomenon. I look at the multiple near-death experiences as another data point.
I agree - we have a soul. But I can't see that same phenomenon in machines.
Scout wrote: "Nik said: "If we learn how to preserve brain, putting it into an artificial body is an easier task. The question is whether there is such thing as soul?" You know you have a soul. That's what makes you who you are, separate from what you know. How can you even question it?..."I thought it was a statement in a form of a rhetoric question :) But if my answer is expected then I'll refer, of course. Existence of a soul is a great metaphysical question. I don't know the answer, it depends on definition. If to look at it as some cohesive, external element gluing cognition, body and other parts together that remains in the cosmos somehow after our death - I don't believe in any such thing (but I certainly assume I can be wrong and even would be pleased to be). If it's just something that forms our personality confined within a brain, then certainly it exists and we can extrapolate on its possible preservation and so on...
There are lots of basic, yet fundamental questions that science is unable to answer right now, while religious attempts I find unconvincing. My faith is that we (as humanity) will know one day :)
Guy, I would have thought that the minimum requirement for a soul would be being self-aware, but maybe nowhere nearly sufficient, and as yet that eliminates machines.
Scout wrote: "I think this question applies to the discussion of artificial intelligence. Nik's probably still thinking about my question; meanwhile, I'll pose it to you all: Do you have a soul? Any thoughts abo..."No. A soul is an intellectual crutch that people use to explain why their intuitive morality is somehow higher than whatever they disparage. And a soul is a fairy tale that grants higher meaning to their feelings of love and attachment.
Both are bogus reasons. History is replete with the morality of genocide. Where was that little whispering soul to guide them straight? And as for love, where were the souls of every low creature that beat their spouses and/or children to death?
When I read the paper, it is readily apparent that if man is endowed with some divine spark, then God must be a monster. Imagine the "spark" that we will bequeath to our AI posterity.
In a discussion like this, the first thing to do is to define what yo9u mean by the various terms. The issue is actually a little like that which bedevils quantum mechanics - is the wave function a physical entity or a mathematical construct? So if discussing this, does the word "soul" imply a physical entity (such as something that carries your information outside the body and persists after death - that is an example of what might be a physical entity - if you say the soul is, then we have to get around to narrowing that down later) OR does the word "soul" simply imply an intellectual construct?
Soul in the sense of electrons moving or the neuron interconnecting or the nerve pulses moving in the body. (All living things have these electronic pulses.) Do they all have souls? Depends on the religion which is of course learned behaviour. Likewise morality or lack of it. i.e. the neurons get programmed during childhood to follow a moral code or to challenge it. Therefore, in principle and AI can be programmed to follow the same moral code as a human. They may then make more consistent decisions or may with learning deliberately randomise their response to appear more human as per my electronic music pattern creator playing a note fractions out of time.
In the end, it might be discovered that we have (maybe somewhat faulty) an artificial intelligence too and then a perfect unity can be announced btw bionic and metallic machines/organisms/cyborgs :)
Artificial usually means something is made by people instead of being naturally occurring. If so,. we shouldn't have AI.If consciousness ends up being ONLY due to a flow of electrons in the brain, I don't see how we could have a soul because by definition when we die the electrons stop flowing. That assumes the soul is something in addition to basic chemistry.
Intelligence, regardless of the source, does not frighten me in the least. It is the lack of intelligence that terrifies me at times.
Ian wrote: "Guy, I would have thought that the minimum requirement for a soul would be being self-aware, but maybe nowhere nearly sufficient, and as yet that eliminates machines."I am not so sure you are correct. I fully expect to have self-aware A.I. at some point, but I doubt it would have a soul. I think the problem is in the context. Soul tends to have a larger context than self aware in humans. I think is some ways it is disconnected from flesh. To me, it is the idea of a separate entity from body.
I have no idea of what we do or do not have and I have zero chance of explaining what happens after death. As I grow older, I do not know what scares me worse, the idea of life after death or finality. So to speak, there is a heaven or there is not.
I personally do not think we are even close to answering these questions and I do not think we are even close to asking the correct questions.
So my answer is: I would like to believe we have a "soul" however that is defined. That we get more than one bite at the apple.
Papaphilly, I was trying to say self-awareness is necessary but not sufficient, so I agree with your doubt. One major problem is we have no idea of what comprises a soul. As for what happens after death, I am quite happy to wait and see, and since I am probably closer to it than most hear, I am happy to wait longer :-)
And another one...'Old?' asked Clevinger with surprise. 'What are you talking about?'
'Old.'
'I'm not old.'
'You're inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age?
Security robots expand across U.S., with few tangible resultshttps://www.nbcnews.com/business/busi...
I'd define soul as one's essence, that unique spirit that (I believe) isn't tied to the physical world. It's pure energy, something that no man can create or destroy. One doesn't have to be religious to believe that we have a soul. I don't believe that it's something that man can give to an inanimate object, such as a robot or a computer. That's just me, though. I don't expect anyone to agree.
Guy wrote: "... While I love the sci-fi potential of AI, I find most people ignoring the current ethical dilemmas we already face...."True in regards to a lot of scientific advancement. We invent and create and market and only consider the ethics after the fact.
This one is heading in a creepy direction:Musculoskeletal Robot Driven by Multifilament Muscles
https://youtu.be/0ZBD2tcKOU4
They'll sell it to Hollywood, unless Hollywood already owns it
J. wrote: "This one is heading in a creepy direction:Musculoskeletal Robot Driven by Multifilament Muscles
https://youtu.be/0ZBD2tcKOU4"
T800....
News in UKA former sacked political advisor criticises his boss (Adviser not decider and he was one of 3 in No 10)
COVID Stats
Olympics (tied in with COVID)
European floods (terrible sights)
Heatwave - (Newspapers standard bikini clad girl in park or kids with ice cream or in water fountain)
Bezos going to space - 09:00 EDT 14:00 UK
More info about European floods? I haven't heard about this.
Yep Germany and Belgium got big floods (which they are historically prone to).Perhaps this should be on another thread,
A man used AI to bring back his deceased fiancée. But the creators of the tech warn it could be dangerous and used to spread misinformation.https://www.businessinsider.com/man-u...
J. wrote: "A man used AI to bring back his deceased fiancée. But the creators of the tech warn it could be dangerous and used to spread misinformation.https://www.businessinsider.com/man-u...-..."
Here is a similar article that discusses the technology. While I can see misinformation in some cases, there are the tons of fraud scenarios that can also be foreseen.
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2021/08...
I guess that demon dialers are going to be replaced by chat bots.
It could be. If they take over and destroy, exterminate humanity.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
Blindsight (other topics)Blindsight (other topics)
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (other topics)
Soylent Green (other topics)
Colossus (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Peter Watts (other topics)Peter Watts (other topics)
Jonathan Haidt (other topics)
Robert J. Sawyer (other topics)
Guy Morris (other topics)
More...
And for about $5k you can organise a hit.