Capital is mentioned; yes unlike horses, people own land and wealth. Una delle soluzioni possibili, sostiene Bostrom, sarebbe di assegnare a questi agenti artificiali non solo dei compiti, ma anche dei veri e propri valori. Homeowners could be devastated by sea rise and climate change, not looked at, but the super-wealthy can just move to another of their homes. This is an inherently internecine relationship, one in which the experiences, capabilities, and moral statuses of both parties are corrupted by fear and distrust. In March 2016 AlphaGo was introduced.
But he doesn't notice that more than half of the world's wealth and resources is now owned by one percent of its people, and it's heading ever more in the favour of the one percent, because they have the wealth to ensure that it does. Of course that may be a good thing, but such machines in effect have a mind of their own. Nevertheless they pressed on as best they could, constantly fearing that the flock might return with an owl egg before a solution to the control problem had been found. We are only familiar with human intelligence and it may be a small sample from the possibilities of intelligence to be had. Edit: After chatting about this a bit with some friends, I should add one caveat to this review. Compared this to the fact that a top pro is still some ten stones stronger than me, a fair amateur, and could beat a rank beginner even if the beginner was given the first forty moves. How would we motivate it? I read one of Kurzweil's books a number of years ago, and I found it imbued with a lot of near-mystic hype.
My own favorite example is airplane engines. Il libro che ha lanciato nel mondo l'allarme di un'Intelligenza Artificiale fuori controllo «Lo consiglio vivamente. He runs the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, where he's also a professor at the philosophy department, he's read a great deal of relevant background, and he knows everyone. So, will someone smarter be able to do this much better? » Bill Gates « Da leggere assolutamente. I challenge any of them to read this book and still say that philosophy is pointless.
In fact I'm going to be very polite. I was somewhat expecting that he would link the concepts he was talking about to science fiction known to us all. He believes the Universe's purpose is the creation of intelligence, and that that process is growing on a double exponential, starting from stars and rocks through slime molds and humans and on to digital beings. The Manhattan Project employed about 130,000 people at its peak, the vast majority of whom were construction workers or building operators. Personally, I say that if you don't think your leaders are making smart decisions, just go out and look at your national transport system at rush hour in the capital city.
The sense is of someone trying to build a tower, straight up. I want to tell you why, and what I think, but a lot of this is difficult ground, so please bear with me. Quando si parla di possibili strategie per mitigare la minaccia, oppure dei possibili scenari di velocità di raggiungimento della superintelligenza, e così via, il libro comincia ad assomigliare ad un manuale universitario di teoria dei giochi, e la lettura diventa a tratti un po' faticosa. Il problema pone una sfida formidabile ai migliori talenti matematici della prossima generazione. This is at the same time a difficult to read and horrifying book. Or at least Google suggested this was the most likely essay. Which means it's incumbent on us to find a way to prevent this from happening.
Chaos, in the sense of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, is just too strong. Therein lies the crux of it. Then I asked you to rank them from 1 to 5. Potrebbero arrivare a distruggerci o addirittura a distruggere il mondo intero. If it's smart enough, it will even anticipate that we might not like this and attempt to disable it, but it will have the will and means to deflect our feeble strikes against it.
We like to keep things fresh. The book reaches this point and gives some closing advice. Una volta raggiunto un livello di intelligenza paragonabile al nostro, alle macchine basterà un piccolo passo per «decollare» esponenzialmente, dando origine a superintelligenze che per noi risulteranno rapidamente inarrivabili. It may even go on to asteroids and other planets in a single-minded attempt to carpet the Universe in paper clips. Therefore, transhumanist ideas are included in the book, albeit in a minor role. Such a robot might make for a boring opponent for a human, but it would not be beyond human comprehension.
It is plausible that our reaction to the first crisis might be something that prevents the second. Le argomentazioni sono molto convincenti, pur ricordando scenari oggetto di libri e film di fantascienza. This is perhaps the most important book I have read this decade, and it has kept me awake at night for weeks. Even generating a single hypothesis that could be said to attack the problem is difficult, and most humans would decline to even try if you asked them to. When horses became obsolete as a source of moveable power, many were sold off to meatpackers to be processed into dog food, bone meal, leather, and glue.
But the bottom line is that no matter how foolproof your scheme might appear to you, there's absolutely no way you can be sure it'll work against an agent who's so much smarter. Now I forgot to specify the exact state in which you want to exist. We've had three and a half years of new facts to look at since Superintelligence was published. Plenty of exciting and grand-sounding ideas are thrown at me… but, truth be told, there are too many - and hardly any are developed. The main concern is the ethical problems that the development of a general i. The first issue with the book is the complexity.