Will AI Destroy Humanity?

Susan Schneider and Jobst Landgrebe debate the dangers of AI.

Audio Player

00:00

00:00

00:00

Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Will AI Destroy Humanity?

Susan Schneider of the Center for the Future Mind and AI entrepreneur Jobst Landgrebe debate the resolution, "Artificial intelligence poses a threat to the survival of humanity that must be actively addressed by government."

For the affirmative is Schneider, the director of the Center for the Future Mind at Florida Atlantic University. She previously held the NASA chair and the distinguished scholar chair at the Library of Congress. In her recent book, Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind, she discusses the philosophical implications of AI and, in particular, the enterprise of "mind design." She also works with Congress on AI policy, appears on PBS and the History channel, and writes opinion pieces for The New York Times, Scientific American, and the Financial Times.

Taking the negative is Landgrebe, an entrepreneur and researcher in the field of artificial intelligence working on the mathematical foundations and the philosophical implications of AI-based technology. In 2013, he founded the company Cognotekt, where he serves as managing director. Together with philosopher Barry Smith, he co-authored Why Machines Will Never Rule the World: Artificial Intelligence without Fear. He is also a research associate in the philosophy department at the University at Buffalo.

Comments

[Chumby]

It already has and you are living in a simulation.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

"Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life that there's something wrong with this world. You don't know what, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. Do you know, what I'm talking about?"

[CE]

Well first AI has to get smarter than us. And then it has to beat us to it.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

If a Reason writer can write an article about how they used ChatGPT to help them make a Traditional Hungarian Goulash, and what ChatGPT gave them was neither Traditional, nor Hungarian, Nor Goulash, but the results were still pretty good after tweaking the recipe, I think it's safe to say that AI is definitely smarter than some of us.

[TwilaMiller]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No, because the Luddites already sabotaged all possible labor saving machines and we are safe now.

Unless of course you think you are living in some kind of simulation where the Luddites — our heroes! — did not succeed and machines have cut back our work week from the glorious 6-day 12-hour paradise we enjoy now.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

But that is the very sophistry you think you are opposiing. What something can do and how you actually use it does not reduce toLuddites vs non-Luddites.

FIRST, you need to know what labor is worth doing at all !!! And you need to have people that can do the good work,the human and satisfying work.Luddite or not, I assure you most kids nowadays even after 12-16 years of schooling are unemployable

60 years ago this was obvious though never to Libertarians I am afraid “Technological society leads to increasing numbers of people who cannot adapt to the inhuman rhythm of modern life with its emphasis on specialization. A class of people is growing up who are unexploitable because they are not worth employing even for the minimum wage. Technological progress makes whole categories of people useless without making it possible to support them with the wealth produced by the progress.

Jacques Ellul”

It was the technological and highly-educated who built the concentration camps, IBM supplied the computers. And the most cultured people then on earth killed the most literate group in history.

[Public Entelectual]

GPT can outperform legions of human blog commenters without even hallucinating but unfortunately believes that words in The Guardian are news, and prefers The New Yorker‘s prose to its cartoons.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

again,you miss your own point!!!
The Guardian and New Yorker never use GPT ! How do you know that??

[NOYB2]

Wow, two people with absolutely no accomplishments in the area of AI.

[Longtobefree]

NO.
That job is reserved for the democrats.

[Roberta]

OK, I've listened to the opening statements, and don't feel enlightened in the slightest on the subject. Does it get any better?

[Love to be Wrong]

Jobst's argument is that the definition of intelligence is the ability to come up with new solutions. Fair enough. Most people go through life without ever having a new idea, but I still think we could classify them as intelligent. Let's give him this one anyway. He also explains that it is mathematically proven that we can't model human intelligence. Okay, I'll take his word for it. I still don't think it follows that AI won't become intelligent and develop new ideas and technologies. Even if it has to randomly try out a million possibilities in its memory before stumbling on a novel solution, it still came up with something new. It doesn't matter how it did it, to us it will be as good as our own intelligence. The fact is current AI is quite impressive and will only get better from here until it surpasses us. His arguments seem a little obtuse for this reason.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

What you think you are saying is only the tired exhaustive deep search method that 'won' some chess matches with humans.

If RANDOMLY trying MILLIONS of possibilities is intelligence then no wonder you don't understand the real issue: AI is not intelligent in any sense and only the name carries it along. It's just marketing.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Having studied AI for my undergrad Computer Science degree and being exposed to it during work life in computers,I know that the real danger, the only danger, is the crappy education the citizenry is getting. A scientistic, materialist, reductionist,determinist remaking of reality.There is only natural intelligence,the rest is Natural Language Processing, expert systems (detailed if-then programs), and Roger Schank scripts tailored to artificial situations.

The best analog is the Genetic REvolution.On the one hand we have Norman Borlaug (“the man who fed a billion people”) and on the other all the bastard children of “Silent Spring”, folks like Greenpeace trying to get Golden Rice banned against all rational opposition.

Nobel winners slam Greenpeace for anti GM campaign This About a third of living Nobel laureates sign an open letter saying Greenpeace has misrepresented the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops”

It is also a moral issue,whether you are a moral person but the error/sin starts with rotten education.

[Tibet travel]

AI should serve humanity, not destroy it. I think humans can use and control AI well.

[sgtourism176]

Wow, two people with absolutely no accomplishments in the area of AI. >>> https://sgtourism.vn/tour/tour-phan-thiet-mui-ne-hon-rom/