[s1dechnl]

Weak AI is dangerous because it has no intelligence. It is fundamentally structured as a dumb/blind optimization process. The efforts necessary to proof safety/security for such a system could very well outweigh the amount of development that was needed to bring the technology to bear.

AGI/Real Intelligence are far different animals than Weak AI and would require far less "safety" and policing. Real Intelligence is a phenomenon that exists on a scale of sorts that many never achieve in its higher forms. It is in lower forms that intelligence lends itself to destructive ends via ignorance.

Attack vectors on a formalized Intelligence/AGI system can be severely restricted using very sensible/affordable approaches. The over complication and pinning of this as a theoretical problem centers on a number of people's desires to profit immensely from FUD.

Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels.

[dsacco]

> Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels.

I'm pretty sure this is false.

[s1dechnl]

Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. As for the security, you'd have no ability to penetrate internal aspects of it without physical and detectable access patterns. This is achieved using common sense design methodologies that are already proofed industry standards. Behaving as though securitization is theoretically smacks as a cash grab to me. If you have something valuable that you want to secure, magically you come up with ways to safely secure it.

[joshuamorton]

To be frank, your comment history has all the hallmarks of a crank[1]. Specifically, points 10, 9, 7 and 6, although there's also evidence of 2 and 8. Now I could be wrong, but convincing me of that would take a demonstration, or at least explicitly describing the capabilities of your agi.

[1]: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304

[nl]

After the constant invitations to check that poster’s comment history, I did, and you are correct in your assessment.

For example, they claim to have invented an AGI themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16461258

It’s unfortunate that in this field it’s possible to write so much before people realise.

[s1dechnl]

Old foundations are meant to be redefined/invalidate by new. - Complexity theory - Computational Theory - Graph Theory Are all subsets of Information theory. They're approaches/frames. New ones can be created that invalidate the established limits imposed by others.

Everything is possible until proven. Given how little attribution is paid to people who break through fundamental aspects of understanding and given how much politics and favoring is played in publications/academic circles, one who doesn't have standing in such circles would be a fool to openly resolve some of the most outstanding and fundamental aspects of the problems that plague them. I've read about and watched a number of individuals with proven track records and contributions to science/technology be marginalized, exploited and written off. I've watch a number of corporations exploit such individuals works w/ no attribution or established recognition beyond a footnote. I've watched the world attempt to suggest such inventions/establishments come via mechanisms and institutions that they do not. So, I know better this time around as to what to do w/ my works.

Just about every person who contributes fundamentally to the world is called a crank at some point it in time. It conveys the huge disconnect the average and even prestigious individual has with reality and/or the attempts they make to reframe it to fit their purpose, narrative, standing..

My comment history has yet to receive any remarks that refute its establishments beyond down votes. It stands alone in this manner as will the foundational establishment of AGI.

http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r...

[nl]

You comments don't receive any refutation because they make vague unfalsifiable claims.

You claim you have invented an AGI, but won't show anyone.

I say you are making it up. Falsify that.

[dsacco]

> Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future.

Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Now that I have your assurance I can obviously agree with you that strong AI is a thing that currently exists. I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration!

[s1dechnl]

> I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration!

There's a reason why this technology ultimately 'comes out of nowhere'. It is not that it will come out of nowhere... It will be that those having the capability of developing it who have detailed it to a degree which should yield interesting/questions were largely ignored for the many years of development leading up until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I relied not on luck but diligence and persistence to seek the answer necessary no matter where they resided. In many people's minds, only millions of dollars of funding, prominent names, and companies can produce the technology. Such people ignore the history of technology that proofs the contrary.

I rely not on name but on sound commentary. AGI could exist and could be functional at this very moment. It could be very safely secured. There's nothing to suggest otherwise beyond the limits of one's own understanding. All of the hand waving, safety propaganda, and doomsday FUD disappears in such a scenario as blink were all still here.

[dqpb]

> AGI could exist and could be functional at this very moment. It could be very safely secured. There's nothing to suggest otherwise beyond the limits of one's own understanding.

Wait, is this your argument?

  - AGI could be safely secured given current industry standards
  - Creators would likely not publish their success
  - Therefore AGI currently exists

[s1dechnl]

My framing is that it could exist and the broad majority would be none the wiser. My framing also is that a number of groups/individuals have likely exposed enough to cause people to question as to what stage they are in their development but instead receive the common : yeah sure buddy, let me know when you have a demo. So, ultimately it will indeed 'come out of nowhere' because society and many individuals aren't conditions to or even have their 'hearing' tuned to be aware of its coming. The safety discussion is a mute topic of discussion in this context as its baked into development and intelligence. There's discussion boards all over the internet, TED talks, economic forums, AI panes, etc.. It's all the same song and dance save for the many groups that are of no mention. Even as the same voices and idols of note continue to center on the same fundamental approaches that don't seem to be going anywhere fast, no one listens to groups/individuals thinking different or trying a fundamentally new approach. Hinton and other prominent figures even come to state that the real amazing development will come from someone who scraps everything, starts from scratch and reproaches things in a fundamentally new approach. No media outlets. No funding groups (even though they say they're looking for something amazing/new). No commentators. No lay person looks to see if there are any such people.

In such an environment, AGI could very well already be established and the reason being is that no on by and large is looking for its establishment. The focus instead is on a handful of prominent names that are well capitalized. So, the majority and anyone of such thinking indeed (misses) the event.