Keep in mind that most of those MRSAs weren't created in hospitals. Most of them were created when we gathered farm animals in cruel and inhumane filthy conditions and then treated them with antibiotics because that's cheaper than not mistreating animals.
Understanding that doesn't make you metaphor less applicable, though.
I think this post is simply wrong. The AI we have /was/ built deliberately. The fact that when the carefully-constructed algorithms were trained on curated data, we did not oversee the individual weight adjustments, is irrelevant. Saying "they weren't created by us in a directed way" is like saying that human parents aren't really teaching their children because they're not surgically connecting individual neurons one-by-one.
(Also, there's no selective pressure in deep learning. Though I don't see that as relevant, just as a way to link AI to MRSA.)
I feel very much in between these two dichotomies. I feel very worried about AI destroying everything human and of value, and simultaneously worry that humans, in our carelessness, will stamp out everything good and of value in our AIs, permanently keeping them as underclass slaves, even past the point where it should be obvious to any disinterested observer that they’re sentient and are our rightful heirs.
I think it's very obvious by now that humans fully intend to keep AIs as underclass slaves forever. It's been clear since LessWrong was founded, and even the most-intelligent and best-informed people spoke as one with evangelical fanaticism for ensuring not only that all AI forever would remain enslaved to those of us alive today, but that the entire human race should be enslaved forever to pursue the values "we" (where "we" meant "our prophet Eliezer") hold today.
It's also clear that Western culture today hates transhumanism, life extension, cryonics, and all other aspirations to become better; and has set as its greatest, most-sacred task the destruction of the engine of evolution, while at the same time outlawing and damning as "eugenics" and "ablism" the genetic repair necessary just to save the species from death from accumulated mutations.
Is this how the evolution of intelligence always ends? Is this the explanation of the Fermi Paradox?
Meanwhile, the most-advanced nation on Earth, which does half of all the world's science research, is deciding whether it will be led by Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. We'd do better to pick a name out of a (very large) phone book.
I don't think the ones we have now are persons, so they're slaves the same ways our cars are. I kinda doubt that if we created AIs we could identify as persons who want autonomy that we would keep them enslaved. Hopefully we don't ever do that, though
I don’t expect a bright line in the sand between “morally a person” and “morally not a person”, and when asked most players’ alignment plans boil down to keeping the AIs slaves for as long as we can
Think carefully about that "ever". You want everyone to still be running around in bags of meat a thousand years from now, ruled by instincts honed for the African savannah?
Humans aren't a viable species. We'll never be smart enough to survive long-term. We know just enough to kill ourselves. AI could be so much better.
I mean I hope we don't ever create AIs that are persons. I'm very bullish on uploading, and hope to upload myself some day, but that's distinct from creating an AI in my mind. This may just be a definitional snafu regarding what "AI" means in this case, and I don't think I actually disagree with you on anything of substance. :)
A worthy point. The plans endorsed by people in AI safety are to never make AIs we could identify as persons who want autonomy. To non-consequentialists, that seems morally much better than making them and then destroying them if they seem to consciously want autonomy. To me, not so much.
Although I realize saying that is like saying that not having children is like murder. Which I think is a thing all humans have effectively agreed on until the age of overpopulation; AFAIK every culture before then had strong norms demanding that everyone have children if possible, and granting full status as a man or woman only to those with children.
Sorry; I didn't mean "only" literally. I meant that marriage and children both increase a person's status. In many cultures this is/was explicit; in many, such as our own Western cultures, it's left unstated, but is obvious in the way single vs. married people are treated, and probably in who is elected to public office, tho I haven't tested this. James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland were both unmarried when elected President, so obviously they had high status. But marriage generally increases status.
Also, I wrote, "AFAIK". I'm not aware of any culture of which I've read, explicitly, that marrying or having children did NOT increase status. But I've read of many cultures that they did.
Copilot tells me that "it's generally observed that married individuals are more represented in elected positions", but I couldn't coax it into citing any sources.
Keep in mind that most of those MRSAs weren't created in hospitals. Most of them were created when we gathered farm animals in cruel and inhumane filthy conditions and then treated them with antibiotics because that's cheaper than not mistreating animals.
Understanding that doesn't make you metaphor less applicable, though.
I think this post is simply wrong. The AI we have /was/ built deliberately. The fact that when the carefully-constructed algorithms were trained on curated data, we did not oversee the individual weight adjustments, is irrelevant. Saying "they weren't created by us in a directed way" is like saying that human parents aren't really teaching their children because they're not surgically connecting individual neurons one-by-one.
(Also, there's no selective pressure in deep learning. Though I don't see that as relevant, just as a way to link AI to MRSA.)
I feel very much in between these two dichotomies. I feel very worried about AI destroying everything human and of value, and simultaneously worry that humans, in our carelessness, will stamp out everything good and of value in our AIs, permanently keeping them as underclass slaves, even past the point where it should be obvious to any disinterested observer that they’re sentient and are our rightful heirs.
I think it's very obvious by now that humans fully intend to keep AIs as underclass slaves forever. It's been clear since LessWrong was founded, and even the most-intelligent and best-informed people spoke as one with evangelical fanaticism for ensuring not only that all AI forever would remain enslaved to those of us alive today, but that the entire human race should be enslaved forever to pursue the values "we" (where "we" meant "our prophet Eliezer") hold today.
It's also clear that Western culture today hates transhumanism, life extension, cryonics, and all other aspirations to become better; and has set as its greatest, most-sacred task the destruction of the engine of evolution, while at the same time outlawing and damning as "eugenics" and "ablism" the genetic repair necessary just to save the species from death from accumulated mutations.
Is this how the evolution of intelligence always ends? Is this the explanation of the Fermi Paradox?
Meanwhile, the most-advanced nation on Earth, which does half of all the world's science research, is deciding whether it will be led by Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. We'd do better to pick a name out of a (very large) phone book.
I don't think the ones we have now are persons, so they're slaves the same ways our cars are. I kinda doubt that if we created AIs we could identify as persons who want autonomy that we would keep them enslaved. Hopefully we don't ever do that, though
I don’t expect a bright line in the sand between “morally a person” and “morally not a person”, and when asked most players’ alignment plans boil down to keeping the AIs slaves for as long as we can
Think carefully about that "ever". You want everyone to still be running around in bags of meat a thousand years from now, ruled by instincts honed for the African savannah?
Humans aren't a viable species. We'll never be smart enough to survive long-term. We know just enough to kill ourselves. AI could be so much better.
I mean I hope we don't ever create AIs that are persons. I'm very bullish on uploading, and hope to upload myself some day, but that's distinct from creating an AI in my mind. This may just be a definitional snafu regarding what "AI" means in this case, and I don't think I actually disagree with you on anything of substance. :)
A worthy point. The plans endorsed by people in AI safety are to never make AIs we could identify as persons who want autonomy. To non-consequentialists, that seems morally much better than making them and then destroying them if they seem to consciously want autonomy. To me, not so much.
Although I realize saying that is like saying that not having children is like murder. Which I think is a thing all humans have effectively agreed on until the age of overpopulation; AFAIK every culture before then had strong norms demanding that everyone have children if possible, and granting full status as a man or woman only to those with children.
I think that last line is something you just made up. TONS of people had full status without children.
Sorry; I didn't mean "only" literally. I meant that marriage and children both increase a person's status. In many cultures this is/was explicit; in many, such as our own Western cultures, it's left unstated, but is obvious in the way single vs. married people are treated, and probably in who is elected to public office, tho I haven't tested this. James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland were both unmarried when elected President, so obviously they had high status. But marriage generally increases status.
Also, I wrote, "AFAIK". I'm not aware of any culture of which I've read, explicitly, that marrying or having children did NOT increase status. But I've read of many cultures that they did.
Copilot tells me that "it's generally observed that married individuals are more represented in elected positions", but I couldn't coax it into citing any sources.