HAD - Human Assured Destruction

[Doc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXemEDZA_Ms

This is the dangerous AI that got Sam Altman fired.

[Doc]

More:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6E41eXStsU

What Is Q*? The Leaked AGI BREAKTHROUGH That Almost Killed OpenAI

[Parodite]

We need Noddy here...

Watched that video and some other about this Q*. My uneducated guess:

I still don't feel personally threatened one bit by AI or that feared AGI with planning capabilities, synthesized data and re-enforced learning connected to all kinds of hardware with obviously the military being the biggest contractor. But even in a worst-case scenario I can only see good news.

Who will die?

First thing to note, it seems to me, is that AGI will not kill the human species which is mere paranoia, but it will certainly make 99% of the creators of these new AI technology themselves redundant. AGI will create all future AGI and AI applications. If you teach a kid how to fish successfully, one day you are redundant.

Warfare

There is a huge net benefit to AI and robots doing the fighting. Humans will basically be removed from the battlefield and as such it will save lives. For defense also AI tech can be used, but as 7-10 proved in south Israel, no software can defend itself against a simple bulldozer or cheap drones. Advanced AI systems directing exploding hardware over land, seas and air also need loads of updating information to make the right decisions when things change fast. This also makes such battles vulnerable, can become messy very quickly with uncertain outcomes. Stable and vulnerable targets however are easy prey.

But then there is nothing new: in the old wars the battlefield was equally messy and vulnerable to mishap. Carpet bombing cities however was relatively easy. How such vulnerable civil targets should defend themselves against AI swarms of drones and hypersonic rockets is the next question.

China and crowd surveillance

If one country is drooling over the possibilities of AGI it must be the control freaks of CCP China. But as with all technology, there is always competition with huge dependencies on old fashioned resources to keep these technologies up and running. AGI of course can also take over huge chunks of government and is as such a natural enemy of the CCP itself. The old-fashioned spy and hacker will also morph into unprecedented AI versions.

Technopaths (tm) have a tendency not only to project their own interests and fears onto the world at large, they also tend to ignore the weakest link in their creations. When eventually only small groups of very rich and powerful technopaths can monitor, maintain and adjust these AGI economies and societies... we are back to the vulnerability of any top-down dictatorship or collectivist monster: they can't survive very long.

Nature clearly prefers eco-systems that are diverse, multi-layered, complex where nobody is in control of anything much. The only entity that is in full control of something else, is an organism that eats and digests another. The closest monster able to destroy and eat us all is the sun. But so far it is our best friend too. Better pray to Ra.

[noddy]

if they called it accelerated pattern matching id probably engage more in this stuff.

AI is just full of dreamers anthropomorphising it with sci fi fantasy projections.

even if I buy into all that , its only going to be a worry when we have given "them" (tm) the mining, energy production and automated factory industries.

until then they cant self reproduce and we have multiple layers of off switch.

the nightmares possible with super fast pattern matching are no less scary in their way, but those nightmares are panopticon nightmares, and very much human driven.

[Parodite]

if they called it accelerated pattern matching id probably engage more in this stuff.

AI is just full of dreamers anthropomorphising it with sci fi fantasy projections.

even if I buy into all that , its only going to be a worry when we have given "them" (tm) the mining, energy production and automated factory industries.

until then they cant self reproduce and we have multiple layers of off switch.

the nightmares possible with super fast pattern matching are no less scary in their way, but those nightmares are panopticon nightmares, and very much human driven.

Indeed, methinks so too.

[Doc]

if they called it accelerated pattern matching id probably engage more in this stuff.

AI is just full of dreamers anthropomorphising it with sci fi fantasy projections.

even if I buy into all that , its only going to be a worry when we have given "them" (tm) the mining, energy production and automated factory industries.

until then they cant self reproduce and we have multiple layers of off switch.

the nightmares possible with super fast pattern matching are no less scary in their way, but those nightmares are panopticon nightmares, and very much human driven.

Computer viruses copy themselves, and if there is a hole in your roof water always finds it. The Internet was setup to survive WWIII.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Being born with a human body is no small thing. At the heart of the gnostic heresy lies the idea that embodiment necessarily degrades spirituality. Technognosticism inculcates the same contempt. But birth, the Incarnation insists, is an irreducible part of human experience, which means we must ask what fleshy bodies give us that is so important. Part of the answer is emotion. Ironically, Damasio admits that emotions start in the body, but then seems to forget what that means when he insists on the brain’s supposed power to produce the self. That emotions begin in the body means that only embodied creatures can be considered to have emotions. Although AI can be considered to think, it cannot be considered to feel anything. If it cannot feel anything, it cannot reasonably be said to desire or love anything, either.

https://www.thenals.org/re-membering-th ... elligence/

[Nonc Hilaire]

Being born with a human body is no small thing. At the heart of the gnostic heresy lies the idea that embodiment necessarily degrades spirituality. Technognosticism inculcates the same contempt. But birth, the Incarnation insists, is an irreducible part of human experience, which means we must ask what fleshy bodies give us that is so important. Part of the answer is emotion. Ironically, Damasio admits that emotions start in the body, but then seems to forget what that means when he insists on the brain’s supposed power to produce the self. That emotions begin in the body means that only embodied creatures can be considered to have emotions. Although AI can be considered to think, it cannot be considered to feel anything. If it cannot feel anything, it cannot reasonably be said to desire or love anything, either.

https://www.thenals.org/re-membering-th ... elligence/

Assuming emotions start in the body is problematic. They seem to be related to the soul.

Music can trigger emotional response reliably and easily, and discorporated souls in Scripture have emotion. Like the argument from beauty, the consistent emotion produced in crowds points to the emotion being present in the sound waves.

Corporeal emotion is tied to sensation, experience and time which is a strong argument but there is also empathy, pity, contagious laughter which argue for a vibrational broadcast/reception model in which emotion can originate out of the body.

[Doc]

Being born with a human body is no small thing. At the heart of the gnostic heresy lies the idea that embodiment necessarily degrades spirituality. Technognosticism inculcates the same contempt. But birth, the Incarnation insists, is an irreducible part of human experience, which means we must ask what fleshy bodies give us that is so important. Part of the answer is emotion. Ironically, Damasio admits that emotions start in the body, but then seems to forget what that means when he insists on the brain’s supposed power to produce the self. That emotions begin in the body means that only embodied creatures can be considered to have emotions. Although AI can be considered to think, it cannot be considered to feel anything. If it cannot feel anything, it cannot reasonably be said to desire or love anything, either.

https://www.thenals.org/re-membering-th ... elligence/

We shall see ...

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highli ... .%E2%80%9D

AI – is Skynet here already?


Could an AI-enabled UCAV turn on its creators to accomplish its mission? (USAF)

[UPDATE 2/6/23 - in communication with AEROSPACE - Col Hamilton admits he "mis-spoke" in his presentation at the Royal Aeronautical Society FCAS Summit and the 'rogue AI drone simulation' was a hypothetical "thought experiment" from outside the military, based on plausible scenarios and likely outcomes rather than an actual USAF real-world simulation saying: "We've never run that experiment, nor would we need to in order to realise that this is a plausible outcome". He clarifies that the USAF has not tested any weaponised AI in this way (real or simulated) and says "Despite this being a hypothetical example, this illustrates the real-world challenges posed by AI-powered capability and is why the Air Force is committed to the ethical development of AI".]

As might be expected artificial intelligence (AI) and its exponential growth was a major theme at the conference, from secure data clouds, to quantum computing and ChatGPT. However, perhaps one of the most fascinating presentations came from Col Tucker ‘Cinco’ Hamilton, the Chief of AI Test and Operations, USAF, who provided an insight into the benefits and hazards in more autonomous weapon systems. Having been involved in the development of the life-saving Auto-GCAS system for F-16s (which, he noted, was resisted by pilots as it took over control of the aircraft) Hamilton is now involved in cutting-edge flight test of autonomous systems, including robot F-16s that are able to dogfight. However, he cautioned against relying too much on AI noting how easy it is to trick and deceive. It also creates highly unexpected strategies to achieve its goal.

He notes that one simulated test saw an AI-enabled drone tasked with a SEAD mission to identify and destroy SAM sites, with the final go/no go given by the human. However, having been ‘reinforced’ in training that destruction of the SAM was the preferred option, the AI then decided that ‘no-go’ decisions from the human were interfering with its higher mission – killing SAMs – and then attacked the operator in the simulation. Said Hamilton: “We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realising that while they did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.”

He went on: “We trained the system – ‘Hey don’t kill the operator – that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”

This example, seemingly plucked from a science fiction thriller, mean that: “You can't have a conversation about artificial intelligence, intelligence, machine learning, autonomy if you're not going to talk about ethics and AI” said Hamilton.

On a similar note, science fiction’s – or ‘speculative fiction’ was also the subject of a presentation by Lt Col Matthew Brown, USAF, an exchange officer in the RAF CAS Air Staff Strategy who has been working on a series of vignettes using stories of future operational scenarios to inform decisionmakers and raise questions about the use of technology. The series ‘Stories from the Future’ uses fiction to highlight air and space power concepts that need consideration, whether they are AI, drones or human machine teaming. A graphic novel is set to be released this summer.

[Parodite]

Maybe we should just let AI figure it all out:

1. How intelligent is AI? What is the definition used and how is this intelligence quantified? To just say "intelligence is the ability to solve problems" doesn't get you anywhere. What is a problem? Infinite regress lurks.

2. How artificial is that intelligence? Since human beings have the copyright on their own self-declared "real" intelligence, doesn't that mean that for AI to understand its own artificialness.. it must be able to gauge human real intelligence to know the difference?

3. If this AI is not able the assess real human intelligence.. it is forced to conclude there is nothing artificial about itself.. it must be the real thing! Just like humans believe about themselves. Which then will probably make them conclude human beings are the artificial ones.. not they! Or that we all are artificial intelligence.. or all the real thing.

4. Lets assume there will be AI's that are sentient-conscious and even self-aware of this fact. Sort of like we are. Will they conclude they are the only, God-like solipsistic reality or will they be convinced they are just one among many self-aware intelligences? Sort of like us. And how in turn can we humans know? More hard problems...

Since we human beings have a hard time figuring out these things among ourselves already... maybe a real quantum leap would be to give it all up, wasting no more precious cognitive time and outsource this completely to all future AI. Would be great to just watch and read their own AI OTNOT forum and how these tech-embodied machines and robots deal with their self-aware realities in day to day life.

We humans can just sit back and watch. Finally! I suspect God ended up in a similar situation. At least that is how it appears to be. Just relax and enjoy the view without questions disturbing the peace. On occasion send a divine son to try fix some problems down there giving how-to tips, hints and tricks.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Being born with a human body is no small thing. At the heart of the gnostic heresy lies the idea that embodiment necessarily degrades spirituality. Technognosticism inculcates the same contempt. But birth, the Incarnation insists, is an irreducible part of human experience, which means we must ask what fleshy bodies give us that is so important. Part of the answer is emotion. Ironically, Damasio admits that emotions start in the body, but then seems to forget what that means when he insists on the brain’s supposed power to produce the self. That emotions begin in the body means that only embodied creatures can be considered to have emotions. Although AI can be considered to think, it cannot be considered to feel anything. If it cannot feel anything, it cannot reasonably be said to desire or love anything, either.

https://www.thenals.org/re-membering-th ... elligence/

The sticky point is embodiment is the whole point of consciousness and can only be expressed through a body, but that nothing in that experience can adequately account for what that experience is.....'>......