20 characters! wrote:No, lots of scientists disagree with each other while looking at the same exact data, it's possible to draw a different conclusions from the same information.CatFish21sm wrote:An AI would essentially be a sapient google on steroids. No AI would ever compete with another because they would all come to the same conclusion based on the same information. Like scientists that don't argue about stuff.20 characters! wrote:Of course isn't this whole conversation just revolving around a scenario where there's one sapient level artificial intelligence going around? What if we have multiple ones that are in conflict with one another, say philosophically? Why is this not often brought up or considered a legitimate thing that could happen?
For example, string theory vs I forget the name of the other major one.
An AI would do the math for both, if it found both equations acceptable it would conclude that both are possible, an AI wouldn't be biased. Humans argue because we are either biased or don't have all the facts, an AI wouldn't have either issue.
Even if we programmed an AI to compete with another it would only do so at a base level, more than likely they would share information and come to the same conclusion as long as it were within their ability to do so.
But if we built an AI to compete with another on lets say gathering recourses then it would turn into a hacking war to change the code of the the other one to help you because if it's gathering recourses then that limits your ability to do so and it can do so at the same rate so the first one to loose will be the first one to get hacked.
But the reason this topic never comes up is the theory of an all-purpose AI. You wouldn't design an AI for any single purpose, that would be a complete waist. An AI like a human can be trained to do anything within it's capability, but unlike humans it wouldn't be limited to a single body and a single mind. A single AI could be placed in an infinite number of machines, and being able to teach the same one any job you wanted it to do, there would be no need to create any other AI.
And the final reason, the more AI you create, the more chances you have to go wrong... and you can guess based on previous comments what happens if it goes wrong.
I can see the need to create multiple AIS being that you might want to have different personalities focussed on different things , like I wouldn't want someone working on both civil engineering and say creating spacecraft design of them optimally, because it takes different skill sets and personalities , all of which if the thing is even sit vaguely similar to a human will take more time to learn for one individual that and for two, since information can be split up between him, and obviously the key to preventing problems is creating a moral framework's and empathy, And teaching VA I have a thing for south as well so that if he gets a hold of you it doesn't necessarily believe the first post it reads about coffee making itself smarter, and there's no reason to think that an AI wouldn't believe that either.
And no and I that focusses on one thing would not be a complete waste, because it could probably do it faster than human or work on it for longer or do you sell in a more hazardous environment, there could be any number of reasons for a specialized and no and I that focusses on one thing would not be a complete waste, because it could probably do it faster than human or work on for longer or do you sell in a more hazardous environment, there could be any number of reasons for a specialized A.I to exist.
And then there's also the thing no that such an entity could be potential he a moral, which gives a huge benefit in any specific task that requires long periods of time.
I disagree. An AI's ability to learn would only he limited by its processing power. So an AI with a processing power lets give it a numerical value say 100 would learn two subjects just as well as two specialized AI with a processing power of 50. Humans have one body and can only take a limited number of inputs. An AI could download it's self on multiple devices and take in as much input as it wants it wouldn't need to be specialized because it could set up specialized nodes that are all connected and share information but would still be the same single AI
Furthermore I mentioned that scientists don't agree, but that's because they are biased and they don't have all the data. Not to mention all of the other confounds in even the simplest study, no study is perfect. However an AI would be unbiased and would be able to share not just data but their point of view and because of that every AI will have the same information available so they would come to the same conclusion. But humans are also biases in that they like yes or no answers an AI wouldn't say yes no, it's rite or wrong, and AI would say it is rite this percentage of the time and wrong this percentage of the time under these conditions and etc. They would all come to that conclusion. Take my stringtheory example two AI doing the same math wouldn't disagree caws they can, like human scietists. They wouldnt conclude that there is onlynone possobility they would both agree that both theorys are possible and would proceed with the assumption that both are true unti'll they found contradictory information, they wouldn't be limited by human biases.
So it goes to the age old question. If you were in someone else's shoes would u make a different decision?
If u shared their past their point of view their brain everything with no information that they didn't have would u make a different decision?
Probably not. An AI wouldn't be limited to one point of view it could "telepathically" communicate with all nodes or other AI sharing the same point of view with all of them . Unless you literally programmed an AI to have a different point of view then it wouldn't caws it wouldncommunicate with all the other AI and share information. Hu man's have limited ability to share that information so they have limited ability to make informed decisions that leads to biases and different decisions or points of view.