AI Developments... and Predictions

 I've been watching the AI developments... and the bloggers writing about the AI "foom".

• Scott Alexander on the feeling of being on the verge of AI Apocalypse.
• Scott Alexander on the new Janus-faced AI simulators, a weird new breed of alien intelligence we didn't expect.
• Erik Hoel on why we shouldn't be cavalier about the potential impact of super-intelligent AI.  (Item 4 of 9 on the page).

But in my opinion, the new AI chatbots may replace Google's current search, but they will stop far short of replacing anything but the most mundane human jobs. 

Its so hilarious that people are worried about artificial intelligence when we haven't even made a robot that can flip hamburgers yet!  Wake up and smell the grease:  the real world is complicated and messy.  We can't even replace the jobs that everyone, even the people currently working them, want replaced.  I don't think we're going to be replacing professionals anytime soon.

Just look at driverless cars.  Driving is a great example of something you'd think computers would be good at.... if you'd never driven a car in the real world!  Computers are great at driving cars in video games, but the real world is messy.  That's the Real World problem.

The second problem is even bigger: the messiness of the human social world!   Even if driverless cars were better than human drivers, that's not good enough.  We expect computers to be perfect.  If a company sells me a car and I wreck it, I'm responsible.  But if the company sells me a driverless car that crashes, the company is responsible.    

For every task that matters we want a human to be responsible.  Even if they solve the Real World problem with bigger and better AIs, the Responsibility problem will always prevent human replacement.  Imagine if my boss could replace me with a computer: he would then be 100% liable for any mistakes the computer made!  Is that the kind of liability any Pointy Haired Boss wants??  As long as he has real humans working for him, there's always someone to share the responsibility.  

Example: imagine something that's even simpler than driving a car: flying a passenger airplane!  I'm sure autopilot could fly an airplane as well as a human.  But would anyone want to fly on an airplane with no human pilot?  We'll always have the human pilots, even if the autopilot does more and more of the routine work.

Humans are social creatures.  The humans who think AI will rule the world must be living inside a computer world.  Its interesting that, as more and more of our world is computerized, we hear more and more from the people living inside the computer world.  But its not the real world!

Is Capitalism the real Superintelligent AI?

All quotes are from SlateStarCodex:

Value misalignment results in perverse incentives and therefore (unintended?) negative outcomes. But this is a problem with any economic system, and almost certainly worse with the systems that are a little freer with the use of state force.

Unregulated capitalism gets humans to act for the human goals signaled by the prices people are willing to pay for things they buy, the amount people charge for the labor they sell, the amount people are willing to accept in exchange for postponing consumption in order to invest instead, and the like. It does its maximization by getting firms and individuals to respond to those signals.

These arguments behind capitalism suffer neglect, causing Chiang to fall into a fallacy of composition: Capitalists optimize only for money, therefore capitalism optimizes only for money.

Capitalists optimize for profits, seeking for the highest-profit opportunities (at least theoretically – it gets complicated). But a working capitalist market economy acts to shrink profits over time, something even the Marxists identify (with their talk of the “falling rate of profit” and such).

Capitalism optimizes allocation of scarce resources. Profits is what happens when somebody discovers and remedies suboptimal resource allocation. In a perfect market, there are no profits. Profit is just a symptom, a fever indicating that something was wrong with the market, but that it is now getting better.

Chiang is more wrong about capitalism than he is about AI. Markets are not a simple optimization around money, they are distributed preference valuation processes that incorporate flexible human values of labor and possessions. If a free market is producing too many paperclips, the price drops until there is no value in producing them at their underlying costs and the relevant resources are employed towards other tasks where there is value. The simplistic AI risk runaway scenarios have a simple, unchanging value function for which they optimize, so there is no correction for the change in human preferences to indicate we already have plenty of paperclips. Perhaps a better argument would be that applying market forces to AI value functions would constrain simplistic runaway AIs, much like market forces constrain his simplistic version of capitalism.

Chiang spends the entire essay detailing how capitalism already operates as an obsessively optimized entity while these AI risks are still hypothetical. That's silly, because the problem with the Paperclip Maximizer is there’s no feedback mechanism to tell the Paperclip Maximizer “we don’t need no more stinking paperclips.” But capitalism has such a feedback mechanism built right in: no paperclip manufacturer is ever going to grey goo the world to make more paperclips because once the supply of paperclips outstrips the demand for paperclips the profit derived from manufacturing paperclips drops to zero, and so paperclip production halts.

Runaway AI is scary precisely because it lacks the feedback mechanisms inherent in the capitalist marketplace.