The vending machine can dial up the distribution facility to dispatch someone to come refill it. The distribution company is happy about consistant ordering. The business with the vending machine is happy they don’t have to do the call anymore.
We’re supposing that a conscious being makes significant advances in use cases where standard automation hardware+software is applied today.
I’m not saying ML isn’t a major shift, but we’re talking about AGI, I don’t think any use case exists unless it’s specifically meant to wow fleshy human beings. A trained ML model in the domain you’re working in, with out the pesky conscious, seems like it’s the boring efficient end state for automation.
No, that's not what |I'm supposing. The 80386 got used in vending machines because technology moves on, the new stuff gets cheap, and because it's more generally useful, it gains in popularity while the old stuff loses it, even in cases where the old stuff is adequate. The same process will probably happen for AGI - unless non-AGI has capabilities that AGI can't replicate, AGI will probably replace it.
Well I guess I’m getting at the fact that an AGI is trained mostly on things that ISNT its current task. Is there any reason why I couldn’t train another ML model only on the scope I care about and get better results? No conscious required. Doesn’t even remotely resemble a human being because all it does it control the combine, which is the only thing making me money.
Putting AGI in a bomb may work. You'd have an incredibly clever and motivated targeting system. You tell it where to go and it would be off to races, eager to please!
The Japanese tried this with plain-ol' non-artificial intelligence, and it seemed to have been somewhat effective, if not the most sustainable.
> Why would I want the bomb to think? I want the bomb to follow some pretty specific instructions.
It probably hinges on how rapidly the field of battle is evolving.
Do you want your bomb to at least attempt to adapt in realtime to novel targets? To novel means of camouflage, defense, and even interdiction (rather than wait for reports in the field to eventually prompt a software patch to upgrade the weapons system)? Well, the bomb is going to have to be considerably smarter to do so.
Of course, there are just as many ways that sort of on-board capability can go awry. I imagine that painting noncombatant symbols (or the equivalent adversarial input) on combat vehicle roofs may serve to fool overly smart munitions for a short while, for example.
That’s a fair point. I think I’m maybe a bit stuck on AGI specifically. As in, indistinguishable from a human being and truly general. You can ask it in natural language to do any computational task.
I don’t know why you’d prefer a “human being” to control the bomb, when most of our technological history in this space is trying to remove humans from the equation considering how many errors they make.
In a true AGI, one advanced enough to make the original poster concerned about the morals of enslaving it, MOST of it’s training is on things unrelated to being a successful bomb.
We’re supposing that a conscious being makes significant advances in use cases where standard automation hardware+software is applied today.
I’m not saying ML isn’t a major shift, but we’re talking about AGI, I don’t think any use case exists unless it’s specifically meant to wow fleshy human beings. A trained ML model in the domain you’re working in, with out the pesky conscious, seems like it’s the boring efficient end state for automation.