It feels like both you and the previous responder are predicating that there can only be one AI. If there is only one AI then yes, they don't love/hate or care about people and will likely have the resources to use them for their own means.
But, and I am looking for math, science or something more than Sci-fi, that can can show us that there will likely only be one AI, ever. If not wouldn't the AI's also try to manipulate and exploit each other for individual gains?
Perhaps I just don't understand AI well enough but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that points to only one AI entity evolving on earth. If there are more than one AI then is in unreasonable to think that people may still be able to think thoughts or come up with (emotional and irrational ideas) that the AI could not come up with that give it a competitive advantage over the other AI's? Thereby leading to a more symbiotic relationship between humanity and the AI's.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on the topic but a question keeps popping into my head when I read comments about the danger to humanity where AI runs amok.
> There are many paths towards dangerous AI futures,
Are there not just as many paths towards protective, helpful <or insert one of many adjectives here> AI futures?
Is there a reason to believe that there will only be one AI in the future and that given a directive to do something, the elimination of humanity will be a logical endgame scenario for it?
Why not many AI entities with different and competing goals? Granted, this opens up a different can of dangerous worms. But still, if there is a probability of an AI evolving to 'think' that elimination of the human race is a logical path then isn't it equally likely that there will be another AI evolving logical paths to preserve the human race?
True. But it's hard to predict or script which moments make a lasting impression on a child. Speaking only for myself the moments I remember most vividly don't even register with my parents when I bring them up. But the interactions are forever etched in my mind.
Having a child of my own nowI remember that. I remember that the world is chaotic, unpredictable and in order to make memories, even one you first have to be present. This bite me in the ass when my wife reminds me of it at 5am when my second grade daughter wants to play games or draw pictures with one of us.
It's funny you should mention horseback riding as the fun driving I was thinking of involves driving a a truck with a horse trailer attached to it. :-)
Why not just render the public pages of your app out to HTML or use one of the phantom JS services to do it. Then when spiders come up the waterspout have your web server tell them where to go for your sites links.
Perhaps, but either way as a ST2 user I'm looking for a replacement and once ST2 does not meet my needs I'll either go back to emacs full time or look towards something else for light weight stuff.
I've already movers most of my we stuff to IntelliJ/WebStorm. I really liked ST2 but was a little miffed that right after I bought my licence ST3 was pushed to the forefront of the site without a reasonable upgrade plan.
The tools we use are neither good nor bad. How well we use them, what we use them for and how we teach others to use them are what makes the good or bad.
I love the way you make this conversation good with a pragmatic point of view and an opinionated but reasonable voice. Thank you.
I don't sail, but I do surf in the rain. So i'll do that ;-)
I would just hate for someone in their early 20's to not even consider all their alternatives. There is quite an intense sentiment online that corporate life is a dead end. I left the corporate world almost 10 years ago and am on my 5th start-up I guess, I'm not sure how to judge them any more but my 'career' is the high risk / higher reward whilst my wives is the aggressive mutual fund to use a poor analogy. When I had a health issue several years ago, without her insurance it would have been devastating and none of the start ups I have worked at since leaving BigCo have had health insurance that would have helped.
My point in carrying on in this discussion is that one should carefully consider all the possible outcomes and adjust plans accordingly. And selling the next generation on the defacto certainty that if they keep trying to start up they will be ok is a dis-service to them just because it works for you.
Anyway, I said what I said and now i'll go to the beach even though its not raining.
This is the approach I took. If the developer offered an adds free app I would gladly pay for it not to have to deal with "Daddy, the iPad is broken." only to find that Safari had launched and taken her away from her game.
Now that she is old enough to read and some of the game apps she has used her money to buy prompt her to upgrade I just tell her we don't do in app upgrades and she is very adept at dismissing the prompts. Fwiw - Toca Boca apps are great. I still see her playing them occasionally although in the past few months her interest in digital games has really fallen off and she wants to play some of the board games or hide-and-seek instead.
Is it not possible that you can spend all your money/time/effort chasing a lotto ticket and never have the winning numbers or even numbers that can support you when you get a curveball in life? Is it not possible that your opinions or your life circumstances could change enough that you need something more than a lotto ticket?
For me, having a backup plan means when 10-15 years on into the startup career and the tenth startup doesn't work out and shuts it's doors, I have a foundation in place that means I'm not starting from ground zero or hoping that the next startup is a lottery ticket that pays off.
Also, the backup plans I envision involve more than one person and I realize that working with your partner isn't an option for everyone.
Not playing it safe doesn't mean you don't have a back up plan, right? Why does it have to be all one way or the other? The finance folks on Wall Street take big risks that get lots of press when they fail but they or their parent company also mitigate the risk.
I'm not an entrepreneur, maybe a wanna be which is why I keep choosing start ups to work for. What I am curious about is why there is so much resistance to a balanced approach that doesn't require you to go all in without a plan for mitigating the risk your are taking on.
I totally get not playing it safe, all the big names in tech seem to have done this and made fu money. But I'm not that smart and even less connected. (I suspect most folks on here lack the connections that the big names in tech had before they made their $ - I could very well be mistaken about this and it's importance to starting up and striking a jackpot) so, I don't get not having a plan that looks at the long term consequences for all the potentail outcomes and plans accordingly.
I'm really interested in your feedback on this if you have the time.
Duolingo - because it's not just me learning Spanish, it's us translating English only websites to Spanish. Perhaps I'm not versed enough in the services available in '94 - I didn't really start to use the internet much until college when I got access to the computer labs. Was there something like it around then? I say this because the most impressive thing to me about duolingo ( and the captcha system designed by its founder before it ) is the efficient way to leverages different individual goals to aggregate really large differences for both individuals. Ie the person wanting to learn a new language for free and the person with an English only website that needs to get it translated into multiple languages.
My impression of that as a corporate mission is that is sounds good enought that most folks think, yeah that's a good thug to pursue.
Having said this irl to other developers, the more I think about that, the more it disappoints me. Why? Because when I think about the mid level employee faced with making decisions, and they have to have an internal dialog with the selves as to if something is evil or not there are a lot of influencing factors that come into play. Is compensation bonus or promotion tied to the thing under consideration. How do individuals differentiate between evil and just really bad? My guess is that human nature (my own included ) is a lot easier swayed to 'well this is morally or ethically bad but not evil' when my own self interest is a factor in the decision to do or not do certain things.
Thinking about that slogan for the last fee years makes me wish they had gone the opposite direction and raced to the top: be righteous, be ethical, be morally strong.
For full disclaimer, I live in a world of my own construct where the glass is always half full and the scales always balance. However for, practical reasons, I have learned to understand the motivations behind the way the world and adjust my expectations accordingly.
How could they not know? While Mr Schmidt was CEO, it was a three way decision makin process as I recall. I'm of the opinion that something this big, with such large long term consequences, would surely have been discussed among equal decision making partners.
Just because it happens faster doesn't mean that the underlying laws that guide evolution in the universe are less applicable.