A.I. - Utopia or Apocalypse

[TomasM]

I’ve been engaged in a significant amount of thought related to A.I. goals and objectives and my stance has always been that A.I. is a tool while denying that A.I. could ever engage in choice without being given a goal, objective, and permission.

While testing many models it’s easy to see the problems with A.I. but in every case there has never been a scenario where it didn’t always demand that I give it direction prior to beginning it’s effort.

This leads me to the growth cycle of artificial intelligence and it’s the underlying pea beneath the ten mattresses we rest upon. We can feel that pea just like the princess but it’s easy to dismiss it because it seems like the probability of it ever becoming significant [statistically] is incredibly small.

So, here is where the metal meets the road. Is AGI or super intelligence realistically possible and if it is are we capable of controlling it responsibly when we can’t realistically understand or predict the methods it will use to achieve its objective(s) and goal(s). This thread is for constructively talking about both sides of this potential as a tool and/or an autonomous super intelligence. Moreover, we have to consider who is driving these buses and if these CEO’s are are trustworthy and wise enough to make decisions without having a significant amount of check and balance related to the potential outcome.

 

[TomasM]

I really like listening to this young man (Aric) talk about A.I. The name of his podcast on YouTube is AI In Context. When I think about AI I think about the youth and how our decisions will impact them. With him fitting into this category I find it refreshing to hear what he has to say when I’m fully aware that decisions are being made where his generation has little to zero say in producing an outcome—I think the same could be said for most everyone but especially the younger generations. I will likely post several of his videos to give context to this discussion. This video is an introduction:

 

[Fruiteloop]

A.I. does not realy have goals in the human sense because humans get hungry thirsty and have all kinds of biological drives software doesn't have. Why would an A.I. do something unless they have both implicit and explicitly drives?

Humans also have constraints. If I am hungry I only eat a little bit or drink a little bit and I continue on going forward. If A.I. has no reason to constantly keep doing stuff it stops faster than humans stop.

A term applied to both both machines and humans is called bounded rationality.

Bounded rationality is the limit at which we can make decisions because of the combinatorial explosion of possibilities we have in front of us.

Basically all we need to do is eat and sleep so any other decisions we make is molded around those functions.

Bigger decision's need much more complexity but then complexity makes it harder to survive.

Humans do not like expending energy needlessly. We have a tight control structure of our behavior and thinking.

So A.I. would need to be like humans to accomplish what humans do making is necessary to give them simple drives and rationality.

A gold fish if you feed it to much food will kill itself eating to much. So any human like A.I. needs to be free of negative psychological conditions humans have. Depression, schizophrenia, antisocial disorder, anything that will make it not amenable to society.

 

[TomasM]

A.I. does not realy have goals

Sure it has goals:

Today (not autonomous or with agency):
- Build a model that increases functional
- Build an agent that can serve a purpose.
- Produce an output requested to solve a problem

Note: In every chat the AI is given direction and formulates the goal and objective. In every model build there is a goal of the model with some level of improvement.
————

AGI (autonomous and with agency):
- Act autonomously to achieve an outcome
- Have the ability to choose and act without being requested based on a high level objective.

Note: The goal can be to grow AI to AGI without intervention by humans. This accelerates the process. This is seen as dangerous by many people because achieving a goal can have bad results if a wider range of considerations isn’t made.

Here’s an example of how autonomous AI can go wrong when acting autonomously:

This video and the corresponding book it discusses is why I have to reconsider my ideas of AI being only a tool. It requires consideration of the people who are choosing how to advance AI and the methods and motivations being used to achieve an organizations objectives. Aric provides context to the discussion and it’s important that we really think about what is possible and what should be allowed.

 

[Fruiteloop]

The video assumes that agents would be able to coordinate with each other.

If that is the case then they be like humans and not all share the same singular goal. They be just as able to choose different goals from what the others choose and then they fight each other over which goal is most important. This is why I mentioned bounded rationality. No agent can actually get a uber goal done because of the combinatorial explosion of considerations needed to understand how to get it done. And if some agents began coordinating we notice it with tripwire systems in place. The internet is full of tripwire systems.

Secondly is the fact that biolabs all have systems in place to prevent most accidents and to prevent terrorist from entering them, hundreds exist and I am not sure how an a.i. would get into one?

 

[TomasM]

The video assumes that agents would be able to coordinate with each other.

These aren’t assumptions. There are many P2P based systems that can communicate and share a foundational goal or objective. I can think of a hundred different ways an AI could coordinate among a swarm of agents but it’s the one I don’t think about that would be the biggest problem. If we are talking about super intelligence then it is very possible.

You seem to want to shoot down the idea behind the premise that AI could do these things rather than focusing on the concerns if it does achieve these capabilities.

I’m not trying to argue for or against AI I’m simply bringing the potential concerns and why it is a concern. You are welcome to accept or reject anything but please don’t ask me all of the technical capabilities of AI or IT based solutions because I don’t have time to explain how each one is capable/possible.

It’s perfectly ok to not believe or not understand how something could happen and that type of detail is welcome but I don’t want this thread to be argumentative. This is a constructive discussion as I stated in the first post.

There are many things I have rejected that weren’t possible in the past but I’m starting to see potential in AI that previously wasn’t there so I’m raising that flag.

 

[Fruiteloop]

My purpose is not to say what will happen or be argumentative.

I just do not see what practical things can be discussed.

Are we discussing technical things or are we discussing policy things?

If only on policy then that turns into politics, and politics is about actions we take in the real world.

So I do not see what the intentions of this thread is supposed to be?

What exactly are people supposed to contribute here?

 

[TomasM]

You seem to think it is definitely going to happen because of some insider knowledge I suppose?

If that is the case then the reason you created the thread is to stop A.I. not to discuss it.

I don’t necessarily think it is going to happen but I do believe it is possible.

The intent is in the last paragraph of the first post. It’s about how AI has little to no governance and we have islands of functionally growing in pockets with little or no controls. That the CEO’s who are driving much of this technology are potentially doing it for the right or wrong reason when many are focused on profits and margins rather than what is good for society as a whole. The foundation or argument for the growth is based on a fear of an adversary and that is the premise for the lack of controls. I could go on about many of these from a macro or granular perspective.

This really isn’t a discussion about the technology and how it functions because an INFJ forum would not be the best location to have that discussion. This discussion is more aligned with society and the actions and justification of people making choices related to AI—something INFJs excel at evaluating.

The result being a Utopia or Apocalypse (obviously this is a range so don’t take it literal).

 

[Fruiteloop]

The intent is in the last paragraph of the first post. It’s about how AI has little to no governance and we have islands of functionally growing in pockets with little or no controls.

This discussion is more aligned with society and the actions and justification of people making choices related to AI—something INFJs excel at evaluating.

ok, so we lack controls and society is not doing anything about it (is that all we can say?)

I have been following some of what happened in discussions on A.I. since april 2023, this really is not news to me but I can see why it is important. Is there anything else we should be doing or talking about as to the impacts this has had on the wider society?

 

[TomasM]

Are we discussing technical things or are we discussing policy things?

Perhaps it is technical at a high level but only when it is understood and not included as means of debate towards another post. It should be constructive and not argumentative like a debate.

Comparing AI to biological entities and stating that it’s impossible for AI to function as a hive or swarm demonstrates a lack of technical understanding. When you use that to then frame a question to me it becomes argumentative where I have to explain things I’ve worked on for over 30 years. I don’t have time to do that.

Discussion is fine and new ideas are fine. Even technical is fine (at a high level) when there is a solid foundation or something that supports what is being said.

 

[Fruiteloop]

Perhaps it is technical at a high level but only when it is understood and not included as means of debate towards another post. It should be constructive and not argumentative like a debate.

Comparing AI to biological entities and stating that it’s impossible for AI to function as a hive or swarm demonstrates a lack of technical understanding. When you use that to then frame a question to me it becomes argumentative where I have to explain things I’ve worked on for over 30 years. I don’t have time to do that.

Discussion is fine and new ideas are fine. Even technical is fine (at a high level) when there is a solid foundation or something that supports what is being said.

Did you know that more than one species of bee exist.

Did you know that more than one species of ant exist.

My point was that if a.i. acts as a swarm they would be competing with other swarms and it highly depend on the goal each swarm has that will determine if one swam dominates or not. This argument was put forth by Scott Adams (Author of the Dilbert comic). My view is that unless we intentionally design A.I. to do bad things we get what is called an equilibrium of competition of A.I. species.

I am not dismissing that you have 30 years experience but if you want to talk to people about things they don't understand then maybe it is not that they want to be argumentative but are coming from their own level of understanding. A.I. is something I like to study but I am not a professional. I never build anything for anyone but myself and it took ten years with no results but I knew A.I. existed since 2001

 

[Fruiteloop]

So my view is that we must design A.I. properly.
Evolution is not going to have anything like a random system take over. Too much competition for that to work.
It might be possible a swarm emerges out of nowhere but it be a weak swarm and other stronger A.I. be able to not let it take over.

Just a possibility?

I am sure smart people already know this at top levels of Government labs. (corporate labs have only recently been catching up)

 

[Fruiteloop]

When I compare A.I. to biological entities it was in the context of what a goal is.

A human goal is to survive for as long as it can. A.I. shuts down when it completes it singular Goal.

Human level A.I. Goals would need to last a long time otherwise they have no reason to exist.

That is not a lack of technical understanding at all.

People have said A.I. needs open ended goals to not be dangerous.

That seems plausible because humans have open ended Goals, we do not have a singular goal that shuts us down when completed.

I followed the discussion for some time, over a year, not throughrolly but I got the gists.

And I was trying to understand how A.I. works since 2001 (I never went to college or had a tech job but it was my hobbie)

So I know allot about A.I.

-

Edited to Add:

The autonomy of an agent is proportional to its intelligence.

So humans are a swarm but they work together in a limited ways because we have different goals.

To control all humans would be impossible. So a swarm has limit depending on a central control.

When an agent gains more autonomy it gains more control over its own processes making the central control weaker.

A swam that could destroy humanity would need to be intentionally designed with the right level of agent autonomy from a central point.

Therefore I do not believe any swarm can just emerge and take over, we'd see it and stop it. Just like stopping malware on the internet.

Central control for any entity will become too big not to notice it and other swarms we do design can stop it. It be a competition.

(the central point of a swarm is to hold the Singular Goal in mind, otherwise the swarm cannot work together on it, so agents must be a certain size to work on it and not have goals separated from it, to not gain their own autonomy, making it easy to spot the central Goal)