This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry.
Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dabble in quackery later in their careers.
Edit: I'm not trying to dismiss his claim that technology has moral implications but he's trying to turn a well-worn social issue that's been around since pointy sticks into a technological one by waxing paranoid about the implications of the (by-definition nebulous) idea of "strong AI".
People can have peculiar opinions without having an identifiable psychiatric affliction. I doubt you are a psychiatrist and even if you were, you wouldn't be capable of diagnosing someone over the internet on the basis of a single text.
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this being the highest voted comment at the moment. It does not make any argument at all. It just casts some aspersions on the author and his writing, judging it as 'schizophrenic' and 'awry'.
The comment can be summarized as 'the argument does not make any sense', without actually explaining why it doesn't make any sense. That summary would be a better comment, because we wouldn't get into this stupid irrelevant discussion about the author's mental health.
It would be trivial and boring to rebuke because the arguments are so flimsy. Perhaps my allusion to schizophrenia was uncalled for, I was trying to say that either the author is trying to be amusing (satire) or is a disorganized, paranoid thinker.
I guess I felt that using a clinical term would be less insulting but in retrospect I think calling out the argument as stupid and paranoid would have made it clearer why no point-by-point rebuttal is necessary. My other posts do get into the problem I have with the way he constructs his moral argument.
I've known Harry for a long time. Extremely intelligent. Amazing scientist. Hardcore pacifist. We are friends, we have been roommates, we have traveled together in the US, and in Greece. Good times.
He has taken a principled stance against AI, which I disagree with, but it's his decision. And I do respect it.
Every person that takes a principled stand will be called crazy.
This is sad, because if/when the time comes for YOU, dear reader, to take a principled stand on X, be sure they will call you crazy.
Anyways, I think his case isn't well put in the article. He provides a single scenario for a brutal use of AI. I think a better case can be put--scary stuff we are working on; AI is dangerous. I myself worry much more about Orwellianism and "We" and "Brazil" scenarios than the nuke stuff. But I don't think we should stop the work; I think the only route is to try to get more influence in the direction things may go.
I told Harry, back in the day when he wrote this, which is years ago (2006, probably), that I disagreed with his position, the nuke cat is out of the bag, we had a nice discussion about it, and that was that.
Is he crazy? Not by a longshot. I would leave my firstborn with him and travel around the world without a shred of worry.
So would my wife.
But wtf do I know; I'm just another crazy guy on the internet, right?
I never meant to impugn the man or his character and I now regret invoking schizophrenia so casually. As you said, his case isn't well put. It is his writing and arguments which I find sloppy and the connections he makes, as presented, smell somewhat delusional. This is not the same as saying that he's "crazy".
I am rejecting, strongly, the assertion that his is a principled stance. The piece is simply is not compelling since his malicious AI would be acting on behalf or under the command of humans, just like all weapons throughout history. I think it's a simplistic, misguided, stance. The kind I remember flirting with when I first took some college-level philosophy courses years ago.
Not to mention the mind-blowing arrogance and ignorance he displays in believing that his research (on Bongard problems, for God's sake! Conceptions of human cognition that are 50 years behind!) could possibly lead to believable artificial humans.
It sounds to me that you interpret taking what might happen in the far future seriously as early-stage schizophrenia. Does that sound about right?
If so, that's disappointing news for me and others who try to take what might happen in the far future seriously.
I'm not sure what to make of your edit. It looks as though you wish to compartmentalize objections to technological development in such a way that they can't actually prevent any technology from getting developed. If we're just going to ignore the outcomes of such discussions I don't see any point in having them, we might as well just charge blindly forward.
Emphatically, no. I'm just highlighting, as others have pointed out, that the mere possibility of future humans using a "nuctroid" to smuggle a weapon is not philosophically interesting in the face of the inevitability that _humans_ will conspire to do harm (possibly by using robots to smuggle weapons, or jet planes, or other humans).
The connection between his research and the hypothetical scenario is not demonstrated and in fact reeks of sloppy thinking more characteristic of conspiracy enthusiasts.
Sounds as though we don't have any significant disagreements. I agree that he is assigning too much credence to this particular, very specific scenario.
> It sounds to me that you interpret taking what might happen in the far future seriously as early-stage schizophrenia. Does that sound about right?
Only if it is speculation without evidence or solid logic that causes major personal distress. Also, meeting all of the other diagnostic criteria is a major plus, but getting severely worked up over something you cannot logically explain or provide evidence for is not normal.
With that in mind, since physical presence becomes less and less important to influence the human noosphere over time, it's not totally out of the question that a sufficiently intelligent AI could actually be holding conversations all over the web, subtly shifting human opinions in a way that suits it's purposes. (Probably not now of course, but as we get closer and closer to Turing Test capable bots it's a more valid concern.)
Comments
This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry.
Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dabble in quackery later in their careers.
Edit: I'm not trying to dismiss his claim that technology has moral implications but he's trying to turn a well-worn social issue that's been around since pointy sticks into a technological one by waxing paranoid about the implications of the (by-definition nebulous) idea of "strong AI".
People can have peculiar opinions without having an identifiable psychiatric affliction. I doubt you are a psychiatrist and even if you were, you wouldn't be capable of diagnosing someone over the internet on the basis of a single text.
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this being the highest voted comment at the moment. It does not make any argument at all. It just casts some aspersions on the author and his writing, judging it as 'schizophrenic' and 'awry'.
The comment can be summarized as 'the argument does not make any sense', without actually explaining why it doesn't make any sense. That summary would be a better comment, because we wouldn't get into this stupid irrelevant discussion about the author's mental health.
It would be trivial and boring to rebuke because the arguments are so flimsy. Perhaps my allusion to schizophrenia was uncalled for, I was trying to say that either the author is trying to be amusing (satire) or is a disorganized, paranoid thinker.
I guess I felt that using a clinical term would be less insulting but in retrospect I think calling out the argument as stupid and paranoid would have made it clearer why no point-by-point rebuttal is necessary. My other posts do get into the problem I have with the way he constructs his moral argument.
Hello internet people,
I've known Harry for a long time. Extremely intelligent. Amazing scientist. Hardcore pacifist. We are friends, we have been roommates, we have traveled together in the US, and in Greece. Good times.
He has taken a principled stance against AI, which I disagree with, but it's his decision. And I do respect it.
Every person that takes a principled stand will be called crazy.
This is sad, because if/when the time comes for YOU, dear reader, to take a principled stand on X, be sure they will call you crazy.
Anyways, I think his case isn't well put in the article. He provides a single scenario for a brutal use of AI. I think a better case can be put--scary stuff we are working on; AI is dangerous. I myself worry much more about Orwellianism and "We" and "Brazil" scenarios than the nuke stuff. But I don't think we should stop the work; I think the only route is to try to get more influence in the direction things may go.
I told Harry, back in the day when he wrote this, which is years ago (2006, probably), that I disagreed with his position, the nuke cat is out of the bag, we had a nice discussion about it, and that was that.
Is he crazy? Not by a longshot. I would leave my firstborn with him and travel around the world without a shred of worry.
So would my wife.
But wtf do I know; I'm just another crazy guy on the internet, right?
I never meant to impugn the man or his character and I now regret invoking schizophrenia so casually. As you said, his case isn't well put. It is his writing and arguments which I find sloppy and the connections he makes, as presented, smell somewhat delusional. This is not the same as saying that he's "crazy".
I am rejecting, strongly, the assertion that his is a principled stance. The piece is simply is not compelling since his malicious AI would be acting on behalf or under the command of humans, just like all weapons throughout history. I think it's a simplistic, misguided, stance. The kind I remember flirting with when I first took some college-level philosophy courses years ago.
Not to mention the mind-blowing arrogance and ignorance he displays in believing that his research (on Bongard problems, for God's sake! Conceptions of human cognition that are 50 years behind!) could possibly lead to believable artificial humans.
It sounds to me that you interpret taking what might happen in the far future seriously as early-stage schizophrenia. Does that sound about right?
If so, that's disappointing news for me and others who try to take what might happen in the far future seriously.
I'm not sure what to make of your edit. It looks as though you wish to compartmentalize objections to technological development in such a way that they can't actually prevent any technology from getting developed. If we're just going to ignore the outcomes of such discussions I don't see any point in having them, we might as well just charge blindly forward.
Emphatically, no. I'm just highlighting, as others have pointed out, that the mere possibility of future humans using a "nuctroid" to smuggle a weapon is not philosophically interesting in the face of the inevitability that _humans_ will conspire to do harm (possibly by using robots to smuggle weapons, or jet planes, or other humans).
The connection between his research and the hypothetical scenario is not demonstrated and in fact reeks of sloppy thinking more characteristic of conspiracy enthusiasts.
Glad I misinterpreted you!
Sounds as though we don't have any significant disagreements. I agree that he is assigning too much credence to this particular, very specific scenario.
> It sounds to me that you interpret taking what might happen in the far future seriously as early-stage schizophrenia. Does that sound about right?
Only if it is speculation without evidence or solid logic that causes major personal distress. Also, meeting all of the other diagnostic criteria is a major plus, but getting severely worked up over something you cannot logically explain or provide evidence for is not normal.
Fair enough. Good to hear that you aren't averse to serious consideration of the far future in general.
I doubt it has anything to do with schizophrenia. I certainly read it as satire.
That was my first thought. The guy went insane. He's not making sense.
Or he just failed the Turing test...
You owe me a new monitor.
With that in mind, since physical presence becomes less and less important to influence the human noosphere over time, it's not totally out of the question that a sufficiently intelligent AI could actually be holding conversations all over the web, subtly shifting human opinions in a way that suits it's purposes. (Probably not now of course, but as we get closer and closer to Turing Test capable bots it's a more valid concern.)