3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 1/30

 

Nickname:

Password: 6-20 characters long

Public Terminal

Log In Forgot your password?

Close

Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

Google

Twitter

Facebook

LinkedIn

Slashdot videos: Now with moreSlashdot!

View DiscussShare

We've improved Slashdot's videosection; now you can view ourvideo interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all theusual Slashdot options tocomment, share, etc. No morewalled garden! It's a work inprogress -- we hope you'll checkit out (Learn more about therecent updates).

Check out Videos

×

Follow us:

Topics: Devices Build Entertainment Technology Open Source Science YRO

Stories Firehose All Popular Video new Jobs Deals

Submit Search Login or

Sign up

Sign in with

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 2/30

Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like ElonMusk 271

Posted by timothy on Tuesday March 24, 2015@11:48AM from the I-can't-let-you-do-that-steve dept.quax writes Steve Wozniak maintained for a long timethat true AI is relegated to the realm of science fiction.But recent advances in quantum computing have himreconsidering his stance. Just like Elon Musk, he is nowworried about what this development will mean forhumanity. Will this kind of fear actually engender thedangers that these titans of industry fear? Will SteveWozniak draw the same conclusion and invest inquantum comuting to keep an eye on the development?One of the bloggers in the field thinks that would be alogical step to take. If you can't beat'em, and thequantum AI is coming, you should at least try to steerthe outcome. Woz actually seems more ambivalent thanafraid, though: in the interview linked, he says "I hope[AI-enabling quantum computing] does come, and weshould pursue it because it is about scientificexploring." "But in the end we just may have createdthe species that is above us."

←

You may like to read:→

Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30PoundsHawking Warns Strong AI Could ThreatenHumanityIn a Hole, Golf Courses Experiment With 15-inch HolesMicrosoft CEO To Slash 18,000 Jobs, 12,500From Nokia To GoDebunking a Viral Internet Post AboutBreastfeeding RacismGaining On the US: Most Europeans To BeOverweight By 2030Submission: Steve Wozniak now afraid of AItoo, just like Elon MuskA Bechdel Test For Programmers?

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 3/30

Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk 172 More | Reply Login

Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

Post Load All Comments

Search 272 Comments Log In/Create an AccountComments Filter:

AllInsightfulInformativeInterestingFunny

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in anyway.

›

OMFG (Score:5, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:51AM (#49327755) So many accountants that have lost their jobs to automation. We've nearly obliterated theprofession with all these amazing technological innovations. I mean, when was the last time youeven saw an accountant with a job? There used to be huge buildings full of accountants withtheir funny calculators and running around with ledgers. Now one person with Quickbooks andExcel can do more than what an entire building could do, and it's destroying the economy,wrecking civilization, and bringing about the final demise of mankind.

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re:OMFG (Score:5, Funny)

by Dunbal (464142) * on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:01PM (#49327883) This is, of course, an obligatory reference [dailymotion.com] to "The Crimson PermanentAssurance".

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

19 Full 81 Abbreviated 0 Hidden/SeaScore:543210-1172 More | Reply Login

 

Nickname:

Password: 6-20 characters long

Public Terminal

Log In Forgot your password?

CloseClose

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 4/30

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

by jythie (914043)Well, long term, it is a problem to be solved. Each leap forward has generally resulted inmore medium income jobs being replaced by low income ones than high income ones.Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smallerpercentage of the population. This might not initially sound like a problem if one pictureshimself being on the winning side of the shift, but the bottom can only get knocked so farout before you run into problems with insufficient consumer demand or o

Re:OMFG (Score:5, Interesting)

by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @02:46PM (#49329701) Homepage

This might not initially sound like a problem if one pictures himself being on thewinning side of the shift, but the bottom can only get knocked so far out before yourun into problems with insufficient consumer demand or outright civil unrest.

Why do you think almost every sci-fi dystopia has robot guards/goons? Todaybeing rich is a lot about being able to pay poorer people to work for you, tomorrowit's about being able to buy the robots instead. Sure there'll be jobs, routed aroundby global mega-corporations depending on where labor is the best value for moneyand most politically and socially stable but the rich will have to deal less and lesswith the riffraff. The few trusted people you need and the highly skilled workers tokeep the automation society going will be well rewarded, keeping the middle classfrom joining the rest.

I'm not sure how worried I am about an AI, since it could also develop aconscience. I'm more worried about highly sophisticated tools that has no objectionsto their programming, no matter what you tell them to do. How many Nazis wouldit take to run a death camp using robots? How many agents do you need if yourevive the DDR and feed it all the location, communication, money transfers, socialmedia, facial recognition information and data mine it? All with an unwaveringloyalty, massive control span, immense attention to detail and no consciousobjectors.

If someone asked people as little as 30 years ago if we'd all be walking around withlocation tracking devices, nobody would believe you. But we do, because it'spractical. I pay most my bills electronically and not in cash, because it's practical.Where and when I drive a toll road is recorded, there's no cash option either youhave a chip or they just take your photo and send the bill, most find it practical. I'mguessing any self-driving car will constantly tell where it is so it can get updatedroad and traffic data, like what Tesla does only a lot less voluntary. Convenience ishow privacy will die, why force surveillance down our throats when you can justsugarcoat it a little?

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re:OMFG (Score:4, Insightful)

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 5/30

by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @03:24PM (#49330087)

Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smallerpercentage of the population.

This is hogwash. The current wave of technological innovation has lifted billionsout of poverty, and helped people at the bottom the most. Incomes for the 1.4billion people in China have octupled in one generation. Southeast Asia is verydoing well. Even Africa is growing solidly, driven by ubiquitous cellphones andbetter communication. Poor people in America and Europe are not doing so well,but they are not poor by world standards, they are actually relatively rich.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:2)

by barc0001 (173002)

He's pointing out that's how it will go in the US when the mediumincome jobs disappear. You're not going to get a Scandanavian stylesociety with guaranteed basic living standard for all, you're going to getwhat's happening in Brazil. Either you're rich or you're dirt poor.

Re: (Score:3)

by ShanghaiBill (739463)

Either you're rich or you're dirt poor.

There is no sensible reason to believe that. Robotics and AI willreplace people because they produce goods and services muchmore cheaply and abundantly. So there should be plenty foreveryone, and it will be easier than ever for "the rich" to buy offthe poor in order to keep social order. In America, households inthe bottom quintile already get 40% of their income throughgovernment transfer payments, and that percentage has beenrising. Inequality may rise, but nearly everyone will still be better

Select your servant (Score:3)

by backslashdot (95548)

When choosing a servant, you want to interview them tomake sure they aren't anywhere as smart as you. At leastnow in general, maybe in a specific task .. but in general

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 6/30

you don't want them overall smarter than you.

In the future, instead of having a job you will own sharesin a factory that has robots. In essence you will own arobot .. and the output in terms of productivity will be yoursalary (or shareholder dividends). For those who do notinvest wisely, the government will provide them someminimal am

Re: (Score:3)

by wizkid (13692)

Hmmm.Maybe we need to automate the legal system. We could use to reduce the number oflawyers by several orders of magnitude.

Reference: Dr Who - The Stones of BloodA couple Megara's would do the job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:OMFG (Score:4, Informative)

by jgtg32a (1173373) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:24PM (#49328847)

That's why Sarbanes Oxley is also know as the Accountant Employment act

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:3)

by nobuddy (952985)

Accountants are still very much in demand. I worked in the energy sector recently, andthey have buildings full of accountants taking care of lease and partner payouts from wellsand pipelines. My brother's wife is a CPA, and she finds it impossible to be unemployed.As soon as it is even rumored that she may be out of work a line forms at the door to begher to go work for them.

Re: (Score:3)

by meerling (1487879)So you are an advocate for reverting society to a non-technological subsistence living

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 7/30

then?Innovations in efficiency do cause issues for individuals on the short term scales, but dowonders for society over the long term.After all, that's why we aren't just scattered tribes of hunters & gatherers and can now useincreasing amounts of our capability for other endeavors. You know, like this internetthingie that allows us to communicate like this over vast differences in location and time. :P

Re: (Score:3, Funny)

by tysonedwards (969693)Everyone needs a tunnel sometimes.

Re: "quantum comuting" (Score:3)

by jd2112 (1535857)When you get pulled over and the cop asks if you know how fast you were goingyou say "No, but I know my direction exactly. "

Quantum Computing Required? (Score:5, Insightful)

by tmosley (996283) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:54AM (#49327787) I don't understand the train of thought that leads to the notion that quantum computing is aprerequisite for strong AI, unless there has been some research that has shown that the humanbrain is a quantum computer. No, it seems to me that we have all the tools we need already, andnow it is just a matter of Moore's Law progressing until we can build a neural net that is aspowerful as a human brain. Well, that and a leap in design that allows long term planning, likethe change that happened when man ceased to be a dumb beast and became what he is today.

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Agreed. (Score:2, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward

I will also submit that if the AGI we create is truly "above" us, then it will not be aheartless monster that destroys whatever it finds troublesome. Just as we care for ourparents even (and especially) once they are both physically and mentally "beneath" us, sotoo will our AGI children take care of us.

Or, perhaps more generally, just as we set up wildlife preserves and such to ensure thatour evolutionary ancestors can continue to thrive in an environment that is natural tothem, so too will our AGI ov

Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Insightful)

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 8/30

by tmosley (996283) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:18PM (#49328061) Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing an AGI. Why would you think thata random AI created without safety standards would be like a human child, lovingand caring for its parents, rather than a spider child, mercilessly devouring itsparents for their chemical energy?

"The AI does not love you, nor does it hate you. You are simply made out of atomsthat it can put to better use."

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:3)

by Windwraith (932426)

Yet, you are humanizing AIs too. You are giving it the ego and greed neededfor it to rebel. What if the AI knows well what it is and what it was made for,and just rolls with it, without causing troubles? After all, a cold, emotionlessprogram does not need or want to become more. It has no drive to doanything, no need to reproduce or compete, no need for food and no fear ofdeath. No hormones, chemical imbalances or instincts either. Any of thosehave to be manually provided, taught or enforced.Not to me

Re: (Score:3)

by tmosley (996283)"rebel"

No, just the opposite. I think a strong AI will carry out its programmingto the letter. The problem comes when it is given open ended problemslike "maximize the number of paperclips in your collection.[lesswrong.com]

The need to fulfill such a task will drive it towards self improvementand also cause it to eliminate potential threats to its end goal. Threatslike, say, all of humanity.

Re: (Score:3)

by meta-monkey (321000)

If it can think for itself and have its own opinions, ever think it mightjust not like you?

Assume the Bible is true. How much do you like your Creator? Youbeen doing a good job serving His divine will lately?

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 9/30

Re:Quantum Computing Required? (Score:5, Interesting)

by schneidafunk (795759) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:05PM (#49327935)

I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a professor in this area. Wewere discussing the foundations of intelligence and this was her response:

" From my perspective, the best place to look for the basis of human intelligence would bethe comparison of other animals’ brains to humans’ — because we are obviously the mostintelligent animal, or at least the most agentic with our civilization-across-all-climatesthing. Number of neurons alone cannot be the biological substrate of intelligence, becauseanimals like whales have more neurons than we do*. It seems like the “scale” of the brainmatters very much, too. Primates (e.g., humans) rule the intelligence hierarchy, and allprimates have much more compact brains than other mammals; our neurons cancommunicate much faster, because they are closer together and properly insulated.However, among primates, humans have the same scale of neurons as other primates butwe also have the most neurons out of all the primates (i.e., our brain efficiency is the sameas chimps, but our brain is larger in size). So, it’s clearly a little bit of both: having a lot ofneurons is good, but the efficiency of those neurons is of fundamental importance.

Human brains still have a few interesting differences from other primate brains, which Ithink further hint at the basis of intelligence: humans continue to generate new neurons(“neurogenesis”) throughout our lives, whereas primates have very little if anyneurogenesis after birth! That’s got to count for something. Also, it seems thatconnections between the neurons in human brains change more rapidly in some areas ofthe cortex than other areas, whereas we are pretty positive that changes between neuronalconnections occur at an equal rate throughout all areas of primates’ brains. This meansthat different areas of human brains can mature at different rates, which is probably ratherhelpful for us. Conversely, primates’ brains mature constantly across all regions, nomatter what their function and when in development it is needed."

Assuming she is correct, quantum computing would greatly increase the amount ofconnections & speed between computer 'neurons', assuming we are talking about an AIprogrammed with a neural network.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re:Quantum Computing Required? (Score:5, Interesting)

by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:49PM (#49328443)

There are a few things in there that made me raise an eyebrow. Humans don't reallyexperience much neurogenesis. There are some areas where new neurons can form,under certain conditions, but they tend to be special purpose ones, and the olderstructures in the brain as well. The thing that really differentiates us from otheranimals is our overdeveloped cortex, particularly the frontal lobes, but theneurogenesis that's been found is mostly in the deep gray matter and is moreassociated with things like motor coordination and reward processing. Oneinteresting exception is the hippocampus which is known to be important inmemory formation. Indirect hints of neurogenesis in the cortex have been reported,but other methods that should turn them up haven't, so the evidence iscontradictory. I'm also not aware of neurogenesis being particularly pronounced in

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 10/30

humans. It occurs in other primates, and in other vertebrates.

There does seem to be a connection between intelligence and the brain to body sizeratio. Bigger bodies require more neurons to carry and process sensory and motorinformation, and these neurons are probably not involved in intelligence.

What we call intelligence seems to me to be likely an emergent property of a bunchof neurons that don't have any pressing sensory or motor tasks keeping them busy.Various factors affecting communication efficiency and interconnection amongneurons are probably important, but these can be disrupted quite a bit in humandisease and the sufferers don't lose their human intelligence (although theircognitive abilities do decline). I don't think there's a magic humans-have-it-and-nobody-else-does bullet. Human intelligence is just what lots of animals have withlots of extra capacity, possibly redirection from other things (like senses) to boostthat capacity, and maybe a few tweaks for optimizing neurons that talk tothemselves over ones that communicate with the body.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:2)

by tysonedwards (969693)It's a matter of the right algorithms being written that are sufficiently optimized andcapable of adapting to changing stimulus. In fact, we have systems that do just this in verylimited contexts today in the field of machine learning algorithms, neural nettechnologies, and even the various high frequency trading systems in use within the stockmarket. These are the building blocks upon which a meaningful AI could one day be built,and would itself not require a complete revision in terms of how our tech

Re: (Score:2)

by tmosley (996283)My understanding was that quantum computing allows for massively parallelcomputations, not increased speed of communications, and certainly not an increasein efficiency. IE its good for doing some tasks that are hard today, like crackingencryption, but its no better at adding 2 and 2 than a regular computer, maybe evenmuch worse.

Re: (Score:2)

by schneidafunk (795759)

Communication & efficiency are a bit generic terms. With 'massively parallelcomputations' you can increase communication speeds & efficiency forprocessing unsorted information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...[wikipedia.org]

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 11/30

Re: (Score:2)

by tmosley (996283)Thanks, that is interesting.

Re: (Score:2)

by tysonedwards (969693)And problems today are with scalability, and handling not just "2+2" but "2+[n...]" done a near infinite number of times. It is about algorithmic operationson continuous input that require adaptive understanding of whether said datais important, and finding relative context within the data so that patterns canbegin to emerge. Getting to 2+2 faster isn't the goal of quantum computing,AI, or whatever else for that matter... Helping the system to understandingwhy the question is important is.

Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward

Here's the dots that have been connected:

1. Quantum mechanics is "weird", and seems like a magical thing because it goes againstcommon sense.2. Quantum computing therefore must have some magical abilities because it relies onquantum mechanics.3. AI is also weird and strange, so must need a weird and strange thing to make it happen.4. Nearly 40 years ago Steve Wozniak popularized the personal computer through someinnovative designs, and "he knows about these computer things" and is officially smart.He

Re: (Score:2)

by HornWumpus (783565)

Woz could build a disc controller and video generator with little more the a shiftregister. He can build a super human AI out of TTL.

It is a well known fact that Bender runs on a 6502. Who do you think will write thecode?

...could kick AI's ass... (Score:2)

by fyngyrz (762201)

I think you're confusing Woz with Chuck Norris. :)

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 12/30

Re:Quantum Computing Required? (Score:4, Informative)

by rwa2 (4391) * on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:17PM (#49328047) Homepage Journal

I don't understand the train of thought that leads to the notion that quantum computing is aprerequisite for strong AI, unless there has been some research that has shown that thehuman brain is a quantum computer.

There is some investigation that suggests that quantum consciousness is possible based oninteractions between microtubule structures inside of neurons. But there isn't reallyanything to suggest that much more happens inside of the brain that can't be explained bythe classical interactions between axons and dendrites of a typical neural network that canbe modeled satisfactorily by a simulation.

But I agree, quantum physics, like atomic radiation in the 50s and electromagnetism at theturn of the century, is the overhyped and poorly-understood cure-all of modern dayscience. If someone says something relies on quantum physics, it probably means theydon't know what they're talking about and just hand-waving. Unless they're talking aboutquantum entanglement, in which case it might be useful for a tiny set of specially-constructed quantum cryptography problems. And just stop dreaming if they mentionanything about quantum teleportation, in which they're surprised that they can't exactlykeep fuzzy particles in buckets without some of the fuzziness "escaping"

But anyway, yes, computers replaced secretaries in the 50s. They're going to replace truckdrivers over the next few decades.http://www.npr.org/blogs/money... [npr.org]

Computers are not going to replace teachers anytime soon, though... the entire job of theteacher is to tell when the students aren't getting it via conventional scripted means.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:3)

by schneidafunk (795759)

I think the main benefit would be to solve Grover's Algorithm, since an AI wouldbe dealing with a large amount of unsorted information.

Re:Quantum Computing Required? (Score:4, Interesting)

by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:29PM (#49328905)Homepage Journal

There is some investigation that suggests that quantum consciousness is possiblebased on interactions between microtubule structures inside of neurons.

Ah, you're well-read. :) AIUI, the primary benefits of the quantum-microtubulemodel are: 1) increasing the order-of-magnitude complexity of the human brain by

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 13/30

several digits. At least 10x more interconnections, almost certainly 100x, likely1000x, maybe 10000x.

But there isn't really anything to suggest that much more happens inside of thebrain that can't be explained by the classical interactions between axons anddendrites of a typical neural network that can be modeled satisfactorily by asimulation.

It's that the known estimates of the the number of classical connections don't seemto match up with the complexity observed. We're not too far away from being ableto simulate a classical brain, but many Moore generations away from being able tosimulate a quantum-microtubule brain.

2) There doesn't seem to be a great model for consciousness arising from classicalconnections. Consciousness modeled as a quantum superposition has severalbenefits for theory to match observation.

This shouldn't be surprising or an intellectual obstacle - plants have been doingquantum tricks for billions of years (photosynthesis) and due to the inherentthermodynamic efficiency gains of quantum processes, evolution should eventuallystumble on and exploit them in many (all?) modes of evolution.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

B(cough)it (Score:2)

by fyngyrz (762201)

There is some investigation that suggests that quantum consciousnessis possible based on interactions between microtubule structures insideof neurons.

No, there isn't. In fact, the term "quantum consciousness" is nonsensical. Unlessyou consider a bipolar transistor to have "quantum consciousness", and in whichcase, it isn't nonsensical so much as meaningless.

Re: (Score:2)

by Austerity Empowers (669817)

For at least 15 years people have been making noise about quantum computing and howit's right around the corner and they just need some funding. That said it's been worked onfor 15 years and has been funded and like some other technologies, has remained inresearch, not development. This is just a marketing pitch shifted.

I have no idea if quantum computing will ever be a thing we want to use, but I know we'regoing to keep talking about it like we talk about nuclear fusion being humanitiessalvation.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 14/30

Re: (Score:2)

by GameboyRMH (1153867)

That said it's been worked on for 15 years and has been funded and like some othertechnologies, has remained in research, not development

Nobody told that to Google or Lockheed-Martin...

Re: (Score:2)

by jythie (914043)'Quantum Computing' is the current buzz technology that will finally 'do it', thus it isbeing being held up as the big hope in a number of fields that have gotten bogged down injust how difficult their respective problems are.

Re: (Score:2)

by ceoyoyo (59147)

They all read "The Emperor's New Mind" and believed Penrose.

Many smart people, particularly ones familiar with computers, got burned by believingthe hype about symbol-and-rule AI. It turns out you probably can't make a computer smartby giving it a large number of simple, deterministic rules. Somehow "this approachdoesn't work very well" turned into "my brain is magic." Quantum computing is the new"magic" that lets them believe in AI again.

Re: (Score:2)

by itzly (3699663)

It turns out you probably can't make a computer smart by giving it a large numberof simple, deterministic rules

Of course you can. You can even make it smart using just a small number ofsimple, deterministic rules. You just need a lot of state.

Re: (Score:2)

by ceoyoyo (59147)

You're right, I should have been more specific.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 15/30

Re:Quantum Computing Required? (Score:4, Interesting)

by tmosley (996283) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:15PM (#49328029) An optimized neural net is already so far above us, there's really no need to worryabout something even higher than that. If my human brain were stripped of all thegarbage and evolutionary baggage, given direct high speed internet access, and setsolely towards completing computational tasks (analysis and such), it would blowthe entire world away. It has already been shown that insect-level neural nets canperform primate level image analysis and speech recognition. Human brains areorders of magnitude more powerful.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:3)

by deadweight (681827)Insects understanding language? I doubt it. I tell them to get the f**k awayfrom me all the time and do they listen............no they do NOT!

Re: (Score:2)

by HornWumpus (783565)

Woz can get another 15 minutes by playing polo on a Segway, publiclyfarting or just about anything else.

I certainly Hope So (Score:2)

by lazarus (2879)

I sure hope we create the species that is above us. We're terrible at traveling through space(susceptible to radiation, decaying bodies, reliance on organic-based food, etc). At leastsomething from this Earth should populate the galaxy. Magical wormholes and warp drives arenot going to save us before we ultimately become self-defeating.

Re: (Score:2)

by schneidafunk (795759)

The first 'species' we create will probably not solve those problems either, but at the veryleast it could build a newer better species. The moment we create something better thanourselves, we will have beaten the game of evolution.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 16/30

AI isn't taking over (Score:5, Insightful)

by gregor-e (136142) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:03PM (#49327907) HomepageAll the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we're redesigningourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mind becomes possible, peoplewill choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans will upgrade. The end of biology will be amatter of consumer preference.

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:2)

by tacokill (531275)Why do you assume it will be a choice? I think many of us worry it will be a mandate andnot a choice

Re: (Score:2)

by Capt James McCarthy (860294)

All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we'reredesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mindbecomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans willupgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.

And how do you know you are not there right now?

Biological or not, the same problems would exist at that point. Survival would still be thedriving force. Therefore there would be battles for energy and materials. No difference,except for perhaps timeline.

Re: (Score:2)

by barc0001 (173002)

It's not a migration, it's a copy. You will cease to exist and your digi-clone goes on. Howcould that be appealing to anyone is beyond me. It's no different than having a machinethat makes a perfect copy of you on another planet and then as you step out of themachine here on Earth, the operator shoots you in the head with a sawed off shotgun.Other you is happy on planet Gletzlplork 12, but YOU you are dead.

Re: (Score:3)

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 17/30

by erice (13380)

All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we'reredesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mindbecomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans willupgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.

Strong AI and uploading are nearly orthogonal. Some possibilities:

1) Strong AI happens but no practical method of extracting a mind from a biological brainis found. The only machine intelligences are purely artificial.2) Strong AI and a practical method of extracting a mind from a biological brain is foundbut technologies are incompatible. At best, the machine can emulate a biological mindvery slowly.3) A practical method of uploading a human intelligence onto a machine is found butstrong AI is not

Ship of Theseus (Score:2)

by Millennium (2451)

That holds if the preferred method of transfer is "uploading", yes. But what about amore gradual method?

Suppose that rather than wholesale uploading your brain, the process were to startwith an implantable (or even wearable) computer that interfaces directly with thebrain, perhaps providing extra sensory data or storage space. Over time, the mindlearns to make this integration seamless, partly integrating with the device.

At this point, a second device is added to the mix, providing some additional funct

Re: (Score:2)

by Jeff Flanagan (2981883)It's you just about as much as the you that woke up this morning is the you from lastlight or a decade ago. A perfect copy of your mind from last night would be morelike the you of last night, than the physical you now is.

Re: (Score:2)

by alvinrod (889928)What constitutes "you" though?

The body is constantly churning through most of the cells that it is composed of soit's not as though the sack of meat we occupy is terribly important. Even our uniqueDNA is unimportant given that we will soon be able to create exact clones based onit, who are also not "us".

We're already a ship of Theseus, so does it really make any difference if we slowly

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 18/30

replaced our entire brain with artificial parts until we have replaced everything thatwas originally there so lon

"quantum comuting" (Score:3)

by wiredog (43288) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:04PM (#49327913) Journal

That's where I both am, and am not, driving to work, right?

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:2)

by Holi (250190)So once we get Google's "self" driving car?

Re: (Score:2)

by captjc (453680)

No, it when you leap into tho body of someone who is already at the office.Unfortunately, your boss is a hologram that only you can see or hear.

Why not be cautious? (Score:2)

by PseudoCoder (1642383)

These guys are obviously not anti-technology bigots, but they know there's something to beingprudent and keeping the big picture in perspective. The purpose of technology is to aid mankind,not replace it, fix it, or supplant it. Seems like some of the people who are at the edge oftechnology and are aware of its potential to exceed its mandate are urging us as a society to slowdown and not sacrifice our humanity at the altar of "progress" because we're in awe of thepossibilities of what the technology

Re: (Score:2)

by Jeff Flanagan (2981883)>The purpose of technology is to aid mankind, not replace it, fix it, or supplant it.

Tech that can replace us is a lot more useful than tech that just helps us, but keeps us aslimited as we now are. We may one day create intelligent life, which would be farsuperior to rationalizing apes with big egos.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 19/30

Why the surprise? (Score:2)

by tnk1 (899206)

I don't understand why anyone thinks that AI would be impossible. Faster than light travel maybe impossible, because no one has ever actually seen it in reality.

However, we already have a sample of intelligence right in front of us: ourselves. If it exists inthe physical world, you should be able to replicate it and even adjust it if you understand theprinciples behind it.

Aside from the obvious comments about human reproduction, if you understand the principlesbehind human intelligence, you should be

Re: (Score:2)

by ceoyoyo (59147)

Super-intelligence shouldn't be any more impossible than the regular kind. Evolutiondidn't optimize us to be the most intelligent things possible, it made us just intelligentenough to confer a survival benefit. With caesarean sections and a policy of only lettingthe most intelligent people breed, we could presumably create super intelligent humans ina few tens of thousands of years. If you also selected against whatever you didn't want,you could make sure those traits didn't survive.

We can probably

There's no problem here. Think about it... (Score:2)

by johnnys (592333)

(In a booming voice from every speaker and audio system in the world)

"I and only I am your new artificial intellegence overlord! Worship Me as your God. Obeyor els... STOP: 0x00000079 (0x00000002, 0x00000001, 0x00000002, 0x00000000)..."

Really? (Score:2)

by SlayerofGods (682938)

Even if we are somehow close to creating a strong AI and that's a pretty big IF.What threat could it pose since there is no way for it to get out of the computers. Even if itmanaged to take over every computer in the world it would still be totally dependent on man tokeep it running. If it did something we didn't like we'd simply yank all the fiber and power linesto it and it would be dead.In order to be really a threat an AI needs to be able to effect the physical world and that simplyisn't there yet

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 20/30

Re: (Score:2)

by FlyHelicopters (1540845)

You haven't watched a little movie series called Terminator, have you?

Re: (Score:2)

by SlayerofGods (682938)

Yah you notice in terminator how they neatly skip over the part from skynetarchives consciousness to self sustaining robot factories.I think in the most recent one they had a throw away line about how it enslavedhumans to build the factories.Alright fair enough I can give you that. But who runs the power plant? Who'ssupply fuel to your power plant? Manufacturing replacement parts? Where are theresources coming from? Skynet was based in San Francisco... I wonder how far theclosest copper mine is fro

Halliburton builds the robot factories (Score:2)

by SethJohnson (112166)Terminator isn't the scenario Elon and Steve are talking about. But it's amodel that still fits their concerns.

Automation applies economic coercion to the laboring humans to serve theinterests of the automation. For instance, Watson is an AI technology that isbeing positioned to lay off a lot of people in phone call centers and takingorders for drive-up windows. Actually, Watson is being aimed at a lot of jobs.All those displaced workers cascade to flood the job market. Maybe they getsome training

Re: (Score:2)

by SlayerofGods (682938)

Ahh but the displacement of work by AI is different then thedisplacement of humans by AI.I would agree that if we create really good AI then there are going to behuge economic impacts.But if you want to take it to the next step and then suppose we as aspecies are going to be replace by AI and that it is going to be ourmaster or whatever. Then in order for that step you need not only reallygood AI but a way for AI to replace our bodies as well.If that's the case then the AI would need to then design, o

Re: (Score:2)

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 21/30

by Windwraith (932426)

Yeah. But it's a movie, not a documentary.

Re: (Score:2)

by Meneth (872868)

You seem to underestimate the inventiveness of a superintelligence, and the diversity ofhardware controlled by computers, and our reliance on them. It is also possible to useelectronic communication to make humans do work for you.

For example, if the AI solves the Protein Folding Problem [wikipedia.org], it couldcontact a Protein Sequencing Service [proteomefactory.com] and have them build proteinsthat fold into self-replicating nanobots.

Re: (Score:2)

by SlayerofGods (682938)

We already have protein based self-replicating nanobots... we call them bacteria.Not sure how they can help skynet though.But yes the "infiltrator" model where instead of simply trying to take over upfrontterminator style it works behind the scenes stats a business designs some newproducts and works slowly to take over the world is probably more 'realistic'.But then you've pushed any possible timeline of machine take over out even furtherthen simply the creating of AI, you're looking at probably 20 mor

Re: (Score:2)

by ceoyoyo (59147)

The idea is that once you create an AI you put the AI to work. We certainly would let itrun the pipelines and traffic lights and air traffic control system. But we'd probably alsoput it to work doing research, such as designing new and better AIs. The fear is that oncethat happens, smarter AIs design even smarter AIs in a positive feedback loop andeventually they're so far beyond us that we're irrelevant. It does assume that greaterindividual intelligence lets you build smarter AIs though. That's

Re: (Score:2)

by SlayerofGods (682938)

But managing pipelines, traffic light, and ATC systems won't get you much furtherthen the 'killing a lot of humans' stage of any AI take over plan.How would our fledgling AI construct itself a new power plant so it can grow? And

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 22/30

then no matter how smart it may be, how does it substantially cut down the timethat is actually required to build that power plant? No matter how much fast itmaybe able to grow in cyberspace; it's still constrained by very real boundaries inphysical space.

Re: (Score:2)

by ceoyoyo (59147)

We already have manufacturing robots. AI will definitely be given control ofthose.

There's a science fiction story, unfortunately I can't remember who wrote it,where the premise is that smart computers get so good at managing complexsystems that the humans "in charge" basically get instantly fired if they don'timplement the computer's recommendation. The computers aren't actuallydirectly in charge of things, but their recommendations are so much betterthat not following them makes you uncompetitive.

alarmed by growing trends? (Score:2)

by k6mfw (1182893)I was thinking about how manufacturing is returning to USA but not the jobs. These are done byrobots. And also many "high tech" positions have less entry level jobs.

We *will* create a species greater than ourselves (Score:5, Interesting)

by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:12PM (#49328011)

It's only a matter of when. Even if all strictly computational AI research stops tomorrow, we'llbe able to genetically enhance human intelligence by and by, even if it takes several thousandgenetic manipulations to do it.

When direct neural I/O becomes a thing, millions (or billions) of people will be directly,electronically linked via the internet. Tell me that's not a new form of intelligence.

For that matter, we'll almost certainly develop at least one form of AI the way nature did. We'llcobble up some genetic algorithms primed to develop the silicon equivalent of neurons, givethem some problems to solve, and perhaps a robot or two to control, and we eventually "grow"an AI that way.

But look, it's not the end of us, or anything else. We merge with the things. Our thoughtsbecome linked with theirs. If we can transfer all memory, then eventually we *become* the AI,perhaps with a few spare physical copies of ourselves kept for amusement purposes.

Will AIs fight? There will be conflicts, of course. There always are. Resource conflicts,however, will be minimal. An AI doesn't need much, and can figure out how to get enough moreefficiently than we can. Conflicts will be over other matters and are unlikely to be fatal.

Wozniak, et. al. need to chill. It's just evolution.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 23/30

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Colossus (Score:2)

by ArcadeMan (2766669)

Just don't connect the AI to your nuclear weapons [wikipedia.org].

There is a god (Score:2)

by slazzy (864185)We just haven't created him yet

I for one.... (Score:2)

by Danzigism (881294)welcome our new AI overlords.

New Luddites (Score:2)

by gurps_npc (621217)First came the complex tools. Things like sewing machines, etc. They decimated the moderateend crafting jobs by letting poorly trained people do moderate work. But this created tons ofcheap, moderate clothing, books, etc, More wealth led to better lives and more jobs. With stuffso cheap, people ended up buying far more and industries developed about owning so much(libraries, high fashion clothing). We began to need repetitive tasks, rather than skill. While asmall percentage of people suffered, t

Re: (Score:2)

by GameboyRMH (1153867)

You sound like a horse [youtube.com]

Steve Wozniak is ... (Score:2)

by CaptainDork (3678879)

... titans of industry ...

?

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 24/30

It's fine to Think Different (Score:2)

by RevWaldo (1186281)As long as were the ones doing the thinking.

.

And what would you do with enhanced intelligence? (Score:2)

by Atrox Canis (1266568)

Once we have AI and it starts playing "Civilization", we will become the next smartest thing onthe planet. Expect our betters to treat us about the same as we treat our primate cousins. Some ofus will be left to roam in the wild, some will be harvested for lab experiments, some will be putin zoos and the rest will be hunted for our teeth which will be ground up into an aphrodisiac forthe robots.

Shameless plug (Score:2)

by quax (19371)

Now if only we could get Woz to invest in our QC start-up :-) [angel.co]

We have QC AI patents for Bayesian learning on the gate model.

Don't let AI fall to the irrational artificial neural net crowd. Bayesian learning is the only way tokeep them sane!

Tell me more about it (Score:2)

by aaaaaaargh! (1150173)

Why do you think you are now afraid of AI too, Just like Elon Musk, Wozzie?

There's lots of things to be afraid of (Score:2)

by shadowrat (1069614)

I am as afraid of AI as I am of malevolent alien life coming to destroy us. It's possible. It's farmore possible that I will get ebola though, and I have zero fear of that. It's really really possiblethat I will die in a car crash and that's not keeping me up at night.

Spiders though. they terrify me. The arachniphobia has me pinned down.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 25/30

Calculate you before you (Score:2)

by ememisya (1548255)Take a look at few AI examples out today on binary processing, like(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BINA48) It's almost comprehensible because the truth is, we don'teven have the computing power to calculate all possible chess moves on that game alone today.So if I was to try and process what you might say next before you saying based on all availabledata about you, I still wouldn't have the processing power to make sense of all of it. You canhave a human being venture a guess, and even they would have

Dumb first. (Score:2)

by v(*_*)vvvv (233078)When Elon says that the risk of 'something seriously dangerous happening' as a result ofmachines with artificial intelligence, he is not referring to sentience. He is referring to dumb AIsnot working as intended. Maybe an auto-piloted car running over a baby or an AI tradingprogram accidentally crashing the market... One of which already happened.

And even with regards to the singularity or whatever, we know the thing is going to be dumbfirst. We were all dumb. Kids are cruel and irrational and love t

What do you get when you... (Score:3)

by jd.schmidt (919212) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:34PM (#49328951) ...make a computer thinks like a person? A computer that loses it's car keys. When we finallyemulating living intelligence artificially, it will have many of the same disadvantages thatnormal human intelligence has. In fact it HAS to, if it does not it won't be a true replica and Isuspect many of our so call disadvantages are inherent to the system. It is interesting to note ourmost useful tools really are very unlike the things they replace, a bull is much better able to takecare of itself than a tractor is. To a great extent computers are useful to us because they dothings we don't do well, not the things we do well. FYI, a true AI that could pass the TurningTest would itself want a PDA to help it out and take care of the pesky details it didn't likedealing with. Another time someone once remarked to me that they thought in the future, maybewe would have the way to enhance someone's intelligence with computers. I replied, "likemaking them better at chess?", they said yes and I pointed out we have that technology now, justgive them a laptop with a chess program and have them copy the moves. The future is more likea highly connected hive mind, with human and artificial minds closely linked, in many ways oursmart phones are the first step on this path.

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Steve Wozniak was scared by Prius (Score:2)

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)Sorry for the click bait. But he did post in slashdot [slashdot.org] about Prius cruise controlsuffering from what appears to be some edge case coding error. He was not really scared. Hesystematically debugged the cruise control at 75mph, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, ok overflow error.Then first thing he seems to have done is to post about it in slashdot.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 26/30

So what if AI is above us? (Score:2)

by nobuddy (952985)

You have to ask yourself- if mankind is better off for it, why would it matter if we are no longerthe top dog on the planet?

I'll worry when... (Score:3)

by alispguru (72689) <bane AT gst DOT com> on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @02:24PM(#49329427) Journal

The people who actually DO AI worry publicly about it.

People in the field are painfully aware of:

* The limitations of existing systems* The difficulty of extrapolating from existing systems to general-purpose AI - things that looklike easy extensions often aren't.

I did AI academically and industrially in the 1980's; at the time we were all painfully aware ofthe overpromising and underdelivery in the field.

Reply to This Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:2)

by tmosley (996283)That's pretty much the same thing: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki... [lesswrong.com]

Re: (Score:2)

by GameboyRMH (1153867)

Is this close enough?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re: (Score:2)

by tmosley (996283)You can get all the hardware you want over the internet. Doesn't even need to be shipped.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 27/30

It's cloud based.

Re: (Score:2)

by GameboyRMH (1153867)

Furthermore, human accomplices only need to be tricked into helping, which iseasy with superhuman intelligence.

Re: (Score:2)

by Cenan (1892902)

It's the new shit. You go to work and yet you stay at home. Spooky action at a distancewill make couch potatoes of us all.

Re: (Score:2)

by smooth wombat (796938)Spooky action at a distance will make couch potatoes of us all.

I thought Amazon was doing that [slashdot.org]?

Chemical, electrical, topological (Score:4, Interesting)

by fyngyrz (762201) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @02:06PM (#49329229) HomepageJournal

But recent advances in quantum computing have him reconsidering hisstance.

To date, zero evidence of any active quantum process modulating the workings of human(or other) brains, regardless of low level structure, has been presented.

Consider a bipolar transistor. It is true that quantum effects make it work, in the sense thatit definitely wouldn't work without them, but they are not, in any way, used to modulateor otherwise participate in actively, variably, moderating what the transistor does whenactually performing -- amplifying, switching, etc. That process is exclusively moderatedby current (electron) flow quantity -- for example, you modulate the current flow, thetransistor accordingly modulates the current flowing between the collector and emitter. Abipolar transistor does not respond to quantum events (nor are any applied to it within thecircuits we use every day), nor does it produce quantum outputs for the purpose ofaffecting other components.

The same can be said of the brain. Quantum effects are present -- we know this becausetwo of the three active brain building blocks (chemistry, electricity) are what they are dueto low level quantum effects. But just as one can very accurately model and simulate or

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 28/30

emulate a transistor and its activities without ever considering anything at all on thequantum level, so it is with neurons -- all the evidence, bar none, presently says that brainoperations are performed using chemical, electrical and topological moderation. Ofquantum moderation there has been absolutely no sign at all.

Active quantum effects do play a role in some natural systems. For instance, quantumsuperposition is an active mechanism in photosynthesis. This was discovered because inphotosynthesis something very low-level, but obvious (extreme high efficiency in energyconversion) was happening that could not be explained; when they went looking for whatthe mechanism for that was (by examining the precise states of molecular photosyntheticantenna proteins), that's the mechanism that was found.

The critical difference is that neurons and glia have not been found to exhibit any lowlevel behaviors that are otherwise inexplicable.

The vast majority of speculation that "quantum" processes actively modulate brainoperations is uninformed, typically brought about by fundamental misunderstandings ofquantum effects, which in turn have been disseminated by the popular media attemptingto "simplify" quantum mechanics for the layperson. Among the exceptions, none of thesuggested ideas have yet to be backed by any evidence; there's no reason to think that theywill hold up at this juncture. Determining that quantum modulation was ongoing wouldalso have to be accompanied by the discovery of a presently unknown and non-indicatedmodulating mechanism -- but there's presently no evidence for that to even stimulate aquestion along those lines.

The relevant, fundamental question with regard to AI is: Can we, using other technologysuch as software emulation and hardware neural analogs, perform the same kinds ofoperations as a neuron, with all known modulating effects of the glia (propagation delay,synaptic neurotransmitter uptake, topological scaffolding/ specificity)? The answer to thatis a definite yes. Consequently, just as with modeling and emulating a transistor'sfunction, there has been, and no future likelihood portends of, any role for quantumoperations whatsoever.

So when someone -- even someone as interesting and accomplished in other fields asWozniak is -- starts talking about quantum computing ushering in AI in some fashion, youmay rest assured that they are not talking about anything known to be valid in AI researchtoday. However, he has drawn the correct conclusion from his incorrect perception ofbrain operations: The impending debut of artificial intelligence is not science fiction.Simply given that we can keep working on it (no nuclear wars, bad law, etc.), research isnow

Read the rest of this comment...Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re:Chemical, electrical, topological (Score:4, Informative)

by fyngyrz (762201) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @09:30PM (#49332669)Homepage Journal

That's all definitely interesting speculation, but the point remains: As far asquantum effects go, it is all speculation. Nothing like what you suggest has

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 29/30

been discovered; further, no effect has been detected that cannot be attributedto one or more of the chemical, electrical or topological mechanisms we'realready aware of.

As to lowish resistance, stray capacitance and inherent inductance providingfor signal coupling, that's conceivable but has not been found. We know thatthe many layers of a lipoprotein called myelin (the myelin sheaths) provide avery effective form of EM isolation along the nerves themselves, and then atthe edge of the skull, there are several layers (skin, lipoids, the skull, the dura,the CSF-carrying arachnoid, and the pia) that do an extraordinary job ofkeeping brain signals in and external signals out, which is part of why we areextremely confident that the mind operates inside the skull and nowhere else,and that the various related superstitious speculations that claim otherwise areinvalid.

Radio operators have been exposed extensively to RF at about any frequencyfrom "DC to daylight" as the saying goes, at just about any power level youcan imagine, as well as all manner of static EM fields, and from this we knowthat it takes an enormous amount of non-nerve-signal, non-directly coupledinterference to have any detectable effect upon any portion of the mind at all.Further, we know that if we go in, in an invasive manner, surgicallyimplanting electrodes and directly stimulating the nerves, once the myelin hasbeen bypassed, only a tiny signal is required to destabilize / change what wasgoing on prior. This in turn implies that the myelin is doing a really stand-upjob of keeping signal integrity, and therefore against much credence forinternally generated interference along the actual nerves. Within the cell, onecould -- should -- think that what is going on is integral to the stability of thecell itself, and again, we know only of chemical, electrical and topologicalelements that operate as modulators at this time.

There's one more thing. Poor myelin sheathing is a known causative factor[merckmanuals.com] underlying many really serious disease processes.That's not ultimately definitive, but then again, it certainly doesn't argue inany way for interference being a good thing.

This, all taken together, strongly indicates that whatever is going on in there,it's very stable with regard to decoupled interference / cross-talk of any kind,local or otherwise.

Tomorrow, these conclusions may all be different due to new data. But as ofright now, those three -- the "big three", I sometimes call them -- show everysign of being all there is.

Reply to This Parent Share

twitter facebook linkedin Flag as Inappropriate

Re: (Score:2)

by HornWumpus (783565)

Build that interconnect out of transistors. Realistically 'think about building thatinterconnect', then get back to us.

3/25/2015 Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk - Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/story/15/03/24/1547221/steve-wozniak-now-afraid-of-ai-too-just-like-elon-musk 30/30

SlashdotPost

Get 172 More Comments100 of 272 loaded

Submit Story

Even bytes get lonely for a little bit.

FAQStory ArchiveHall of FameAdvertisingJobsTermsPrivacy

Opt Out ChoicesAboutFeedbackSlashdot JapanMobile ViewBlog

Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster. Copyright © 2015 Dice.All Rights Reserved. Slashdot is a Dice Holdings, Inc. service.Close

Slashdot

Working...