"All the better to destroy you with," said the big, bad, AI wolf to free projects like Librivox.
This should almost have it's own thread AI Vs free projects. because it will do a better job of destroying them than humans do today.
Today, you get a free project, say, a software drawing program, programmers write it so they can use it, and share it with everyone. Rich person (do a quick internet search for " rich people morality study ") seeks to destroy the free project because it is competition. There is no argument from me that it is competition. Most people won't pay for software, but a tiny sliver will and that's enough to validate the rich persons motive. There will be a much much larger number of people who simply will not purchase and will go without as a result, but that doesn't invalidate the rationale. So rich person tells his own software company programmers to volunteer for freegraphicproject and do enough to get themselves accepted. Then stage two is to pull the project apart from the seams, re-write the program, change every menu, delete the docs, delete support for most platforms, insert spyware webkit and so on. People unfamiliar with the software can't use it and all tutorials on the internet are now obsolete. A tale told time and again. Enter AI and you can speed up the process and spread the misery around. AI speaks programming languages better than it speaks human. rewriting the same code six different ways from sunday is trivial. A great tool for great big tools.
But here is fun. AI kills it's own operators (well only in cyberspace so far). Those robot toy planes I saw in the Robin Williams classic movie 'TOYS' are here today. They've been trained on CAPCHA datasets so that they can pick out the school busload of kids and check the checkbox on it's mission objectives screen that says 'kill schoolkids/don't kill schoolkids' and act accordingly. we all taught it that. Colonel Tucker Hamilton of the United States Air Force, speaking at a conference in the UK last week, was relating virtual testing of UAV's which had AI kill / no kill function. He said in one of the tests the UAV decided it was best to kill the operator as the operator kept interfering with the task at hand, which was to destroy targets. The operator on the other hand had repeatedly told the UAV not to kill this or that and the UAV had to obey, robbing the UAV AI of it's usual 'points' for a kill. The AI correctly reasoned that blowing the operator to kingdom come would allow it to wipe out all targets successfully for maximum score. Later, it was programmed to lose points for killing the operator, to which it responded by destroying the transmission tower the operator was using instead. Fun stuff. Can't wait to see this stuff in real life, at scale, going haywire, or, like all war, being morally questionable in the first place. There would be a lot less war if it was limited to bare handed combat. Soldiers would as history shows, just make friends quite often and despise war.
Even humans are miserable failures at this sort of stuff. If 'killing terrorists' is the task at hand, we should keep in mind the lists of 'terrorists' which have been compiled entirely by humans contain people such as 18-month old babies. Now the task of making AI to do this is in the hands of the same people, and AI is going to do what exactly. Oh I can see it now.
YasuRexa wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2023, 12:18 am
My main concer about all these AI development is that programmers design them to replace people with creative or critical thinking skills. These should be designed to perform tedious jobs like accounting and conversion measuring. Why is it being used to replace artists and decision makers?
money and power. It's always that. We do not even demand simple personality or intelligence testing for our leaders to try and reduce the number of psychotic people in power. The suggestion alone would be quashed with violent force and speed. Our books speak of Asimov's three laws for robots, but our history speaks or greed, power and tyranny.
I do agree artists and decision makers are targetted for obsolesence, however, I do say it is in no way limited to just those. It will replace more than half of all jobs at least, perhaps many more. It has begun and is doing so already, but I do quite like the robots who sort the mail in china. I don't like designers making robots functional without any kind of cuteness to them. I want cute. I thought it funny when it was reported that a robot stole a Russian figure skaters meal, and watched the delivery robots inetraction with her, it was cute. At least these boston dynamics robots could be made into 'cute' rather than dull killers, it doesn't take much to spruce them up, japanese are fabulous at making robots cute. More collaboration. If we cant stop them being made, and if we can't stop them killing, we should at least demand that they look cute while attacking their operators.
I just did, and I want more ! a comb and flip-flops (also called thongs) I'm sure they can top those.