I'm surprised the DoD is spending as little as $250MM on this type of Big Data/AI research. Most of the technology outlined in Lemnois' memo is interesting and exciting, rather than intimidating and indicative of "Terminator development." I'm particularly excited about "reasoning and inference engines that can learn from experience with little training and within mission timeframes" and advances in "human-machine interfaces to enable seamless collaboration for operations and for training."
Maybe a little less hyperbole in the post title next time?
No. An AI arms race between the US and China means one of the many bad versions of the Singularity is on its way. You know, the ones where computers eventually hit self-improving territory and grow so powerful so fast that all the design mistakes inevitably made get magnified and the pathetic attempts at safety that were implemented prove to be completely pointless, leaving the computers to eventually wipe us out, whether by accident or on purpose. If we're lucky we'll get to lose an actual war against them that plays out on a human timescale, but chances are that won't even be an option, our loss will be so quick and decisive.
That this is military research makes this outcome vastly more certain, as the systems would be weaponized from the beginning.
However, there's hope. They mention "big data", which means they're unlikely to ever get truly general AI, let alone the self-improving kind - "big data" is what you do when your system is stupid and your data is cheap, and if that's your situation, you're never going to be build a system that's smart, because that requires extracting as much information from minimal input as possible. AGI is not an incremental improvement on machine learning methods, it's a whole different beast. As long as they're fundamentally misguided from the start, they won't be much of a threat.
China, on the other hand, does have people working on the "right" parts of this problem, and that's a lot more concerning...
We are very very far away from having any kind of artificial intelligence on the level we currently exist. We don't even understand the mechanics behind our own intelligence.
So if a machine is killing humans somewhere, it's because some human pressed the button.
So I agree with you, I find the thought of humans killing other humans much more disturbing.
14 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 31.1 ms ] threadThat this is military research makes this outcome vastly more certain, as the systems would be weaponized from the beginning.
However, there's hope. They mention "big data", which means they're unlikely to ever get truly general AI, let alone the self-improving kind - "big data" is what you do when your system is stupid and your data is cheap, and if that's your situation, you're never going to be build a system that's smart, because that requires extracting as much information from minimal input as possible. AGI is not an incremental improvement on machine learning methods, it's a whole different beast. As long as they're fundamentally misguided from the start, they won't be much of a threat.
China, on the other hand, does have people working on the "right" parts of this problem, and that's a lot more concerning...
So if a machine is killing humans somewhere, it's because some human pressed the button.
So I agree with you, I find the thought of humans killing other humans much more disturbing.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al...
Ask about the motives. It wouldn't be an Asimov machine for starters