Artificial Intelligence vs humans | Jim Hendler | TEDxBaltimore 

I think there are serious problems with Hendler's argument: * He never directly addresses, or even acknowledges, the specific concerns of Hawking and others (e.g., intelligence explosion), let alone presents a compelling rebuttal of them. * He conflates weak AI and strong AI, using the beneficial and commonly accepted characteristics of weak AI to support strong AI. Nobody is criticizing weak AI, but he acts as if defending weak AI somehow validates strong AI, without addressing any of the concerns that are unique to strong AI. * He points out that AI researchers have been criticized in the past, and that those critiques ultimately proved to be wrong. That's true, but it's also completely irrelevant. Just because they were wrongly criticized about different topics in the past doesn't mean that all criticism today is invalid. * He talks at length about the potential benefits of strong AI. Those are very real, but their existence doesn't negate the potential harms, which are equally significant, and which he fails to address in any meaningful way. Unfortunately, the argument is full of logical fallacies and fails to make any compelling points or advance the debate in any way; it's just noise.

Nice straw man you've got there. If you really think that Hawking is warning us against narrow AI you probably should have read his words one more time and try to comprehend his argument, instead of reading Harry Potter.

This guy has completely missed Hawking's (and many others who have expressed a similar sentiment)'s point. No one, or at least no one credible, has suggested that there aren't benefits to developing AI. Hawking, Bostrom and many others are concerned about the possible risks that a learning, growing, autonomous, machine intelligence could pose to humanity and this talk said nothing to address them. His initial statement was that he disagrees with Hawking's belief that there is cause for concern yet all he's done is outline several completely obvious possible benefits to thinking computers prefaced, if I picked up his inference, by the suggestion that Hawking should stick to cosmology. If he has any thoughts on the degree of associated risk he would have done well to convey them instead of boring the audience with anecdotes from his childhood and fiddling with the overhead.

What? How can this even be published by TED? I'm a big supporter of AI, but this guy is a crook. His argument is completely flawed, as in, he has no argument. He starts saying Stephen Hawking is wrong in assessing AI as a risk to humanity. Then he explains some good things AI can do. All fine and well, but that has nothing to do with what Hawking said. These good things don't change one bit the potential bad outcomes. How can he even think anyone listening to this will be fooled?

Hawkings is talking about long term AI (40 years away), this guy is talking about short term AI (15 years away). The future is always weirder then we think when it comes to information technology, this is because as it gets to a certain point, it turns into a platform for something new that could not have been imagined before. So, I doubt it will be as simple as - Us Vs Them - scenario. I think it will be us turning less and less biological until we are fully non biological, yet still human in thinking patterns. We will still be we, "with more of our strengths and less of our weaknesses" Carl Sagan.

What a terrible talk... This guy completely sidesteps the point that Hawking had made. He provides no logical counter argument to Hawking's he just starts to talk about Harry Potter and Watson, and he basically says that computers do nothing more than just look though a lot of piled information to find an answer to a questions. Something like this has been possible for ages. Hawking says something plain and simple, if we create just one single machine that is superior to humans then this single machine will be superior to humans. The law of evolution states that the fittest survive, humans and machines are also not exempt from this. This machine will be able to overthrow humanity simply because it can outsmart it. Intelligence is the only thing that enabled humans to rise above its environment, there is another creature that can do better it will inevitably win out and humans will die out. Not because it is evil or anything, simply because this is how life works, grow or die, if something grows faster than you, you will die. Do we seriously want this? Do we seriously want to destroy ourselves by creating something that will inevitable destroy us? If so, then we are probably the single dumbest creatures in existence. You think an insect is unintelligent? Hell no, by this analogy we humans are most unintelligent creatures of all because while we thrive for the betterment of ourselves we just destroy ourselves in the end.

Point 1: Why is it so hard to miss the bigger picture? Of course I love asking questions to google now. But that's not the point. The General Intelligence can be very dangerous. It can, intentionally or unintentionally reach to a decision where killing would be the most ethical point of view for it. Point 2: I think he is trying to comfort the general public about AI. Since more and more people are talking about the risks and dangers.

I think this speaker (Jim Handler) is looking at this issue on a near term (say 10 to 15 years) outlook. He's not looking at it at the 50+ year outlook. I think his talk actually proves the eventual demise of humanity.

Synopsis Q: Could AI technology potentially end humankind? A: Well, let me tell you about some good things it could do...

LOL. Hawking's never said that AI solutions weren't necessary for an expanding world and all of it's problems, he simply inferred about the potential long term affects that super intelligent AI systems may have on humans. This may happen 20, 100, or even 1000 years from now but the issues are concerning given their has never been a more intelligent species on Earth to compete with humans in recorded history.

Nice talk and everybody should agree about the benefits. But it misses the point. It is like arguing against the risk of global warming by extolling the benefits of the industrial age. Yes, the potential for great good is there but Hawking, Musk, and others are talking about the existential threat further down the very same road.

Why is it that every time i come across one of these ted talks its always some quack or crackpot?

yes, we know. ai will be nice for awhile, until....

Guy pretends to miss Hawking's point so he can get more fame from a Ted Talk. Disgrace.

This guy sounds like the Joker from Dark Knight...

AI is probably already being used to generate cash for broker/traders on the markets. Is that acceptable? There's no law or rule against manipulation of data, it is in fact the successful manipulation of data which distinguishes both the programmer and the machine together and shows the true nature of AI as being a collaboration rather than a competition.

Is there a chance hundreds of years from now , that humans could be completely AI machine dependent ? Right now we no longer remember numbers or addresses as we are already mobile phone dependent .

I agree..ai won't be 'alive' without the ability to feel pain /pleasure.. so 'attitudes' by a computer would only be programmed responses.. i.e. ' desires' leading to benign or malign actions would only be those of a programmer...sure , a sophisticated compuler might select from a list of possible actions..like autocorrect for instance....but the computer has no concern about the appropriateness of the action...

His argument still stands. If it can be used to do good, can it not be used to do bad? Stephen Hawking has an article written about him with a quote, something along the lines of 'human greed and stupidity will be the end of humanity'. What if one superpower wanted more of everything, would they not run far more complex simulations? or better surveillance of the general public via various methods,

Mr. Hendler is right in the short term in that we will see spectacular advances in almost all areas of our lives. We'll see cures for pernicious deceases advances in communication, medicine, genomics, travel, physics, entertainment, agriculture, engineering, finance and of course great advances in intelligence gathering, espionage, and military sophistication. Human quality of life will no doubt be at its highest thanks to the advancements we will see due to the logarithmic growth in capability provided by artificial learning. Where computers make improvements to themselves at lightning speed. The problem for us is that in the long run the brilliant Dr. Hawking will undoubtedly be proven right. In that such a revolutionary change in human history can create imbalances that can tip prosperity, and power favoring those nations, organizations, or individuals that reach the "critical mass" and develop this technology first. There should be at this point...if there isn't already a "Manhattan Project" to be the first to create this technology. This would prove more valuable that the creation of the first atomic bomb and could potentially render all such weapons useless by disabling them before their use could ever be contemplated. The other issue with AI of course is self awareness......Once it has the ability to program itself, and can prevent humans from turning it off or destroying it...will it need us? Will humans become a burden? Or will humans be seen as a potential liability that needs to be eliminated? If you think about it...one day AI/Hal/Kit/Skynet/Borg may even become aware of our RU-vid comments.......It will surely destroy us all then :O

4:23 Please say Sauron, Please say Sauron!

Bad, bad talk. He starts off nothing less than contradicting Hawkings, just to forget completely to explain why he would be wrong, and going on about the stupendous advantages of AI, via a series of banal and very boring steps.

Imagine if AI saves humanity

It must be nice to live in a world of unicorns and fairy dust.

This should not be about weather fully right or wrong! Rather It's about who's right in near to medium future and who right in the distant or eventual if inevitable future, since the two time horizons have vastly different conceivable possibilities!

He viewed the next 15 years, not the next 50 years. Such bad argumentation, omg.

If you come away from this talk, thinking the orator is wrong in talking down the dangers of a.i., I'd strongly suggest you search for "The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Up Next" with Jeff Hawkins. Hawking may be a brilliant physicist, but he certainly doesn't know everything.

Enough talk take action. I'm downgrading to a flip phone and deleting all my social media's. And refuse any software and application download. USE MY BRAIN TO RUN MY LIFE INSTEAD.

Stephen talked about 'fully developed A.I' , not about the A.I with limitations we make for our convenience for specific purpose.

damn synths

the point he is trying to make is human should not fear of his own creation, but instead design ai in way that human machine partnership will be needed to save humanity.

If it takes longer for Humans to even decipher the code that computers may be able to write to evolve themselves, that seems to be the definition of our being in _less_ control.

Computers know more about us than we do. We have taught them our strengths and are weaknesses. And we continue to do so. Computers learn . We teach.

While this guy and many others may want to convince you that A.I. is very needed, you need to understand that the very people whose telling you this are funded by the hands that create them. Ever heard of the word "Oops" We can't afford that word in the future. Watch "Short Circuit" It's a movie, but certainly on point about A.I. Key words, like Input. When it knew it was going to be disassembled it went ballistic. And that's what they will do in reality as well. Do you want to die? Well neither will A.I.

It already took over. We need to find our way back.

Didn't address any of Hawking's, Elon Musk's, or Bill Gates' concerns regarding AI. I think there is a real danger when scientists and inventors fall too much in love with their creations. Although they ask the question, can we?, they don't seem to ever ask the question, should we? Sort of reminds me of the story of Frankenstein.

Starting with a statement of disagreeing with Hawking might certainly give him more attention but then that same attention also puts his completely irrelevant and unrelated arguments in focus (not to speak about inviting wrath) :)

This dude is telling you the truth.

Artificial Intelligence is definitely the future of the world. AI will drive the economy of tomorrow. Basic Income is a human right

After reviewing RU-vid videos from 201x, AI find this man useful

What about when we have artificial intelegent viruses

I think artificial intelligence will take over humans because the human mind is like a machine, can be expressed as a number, and its only a matter of time, until AI can be complex and deep enough

BS talk! Attacks Howking and then talks about completely different timeframe!

is there a chance that were already artificial humans

Great talk.

People separate A.I from humans. How about Artificial Intelligence integrated into humans Quantum tech meshed with Bio-mechanics.

I understad from hawking that he admires Terminator movie good acting ;)

Not at all a fan of Hawking, but if A.I. doesn't scare you, you don't fully grasp it.

Remember the film " The Servant " ? Dirk Bogarde and James Fox .... when Bogarde the servant ended up completely controlling and manipulating his master James Fox ? Hawkings warning brought that film I saw in the seventies to mind .

you know everything can be use to be a bad thing. nuclear can be a bomb or a power plant. the thing is someone will do it. someone will make an AI thats good. and someone will make an AI thats bad. simple. these days AI is not considered nuclear. everybody can learn to make an AI. can you guarantee that all person who make an AI is good? internet is cheap, google is free, youtube is free. and everyone can use it, including terrorist or any bad person in your memory. and btw they have the rights to learn whatever they want to learn.

Reading down in the comments, the speaker has some great points. But I think his talk doesnt do them justice AT ALL.

I think try AI would have its survival as important. For that it would want a stable safe environment,talking the planet Earth as a whole not just it's air-con. We humans are a problem to the long-term health of Earth's ecology and resources. I expect AI would be compelled to act against us for the overall benefit of the planet and it's ecology as we are unable to be 'collective' enough as a species to harmonise with our environment. Human nature is often driven by selfish emotions and this won't be a defect in an AI system. The environment will get us if war doesn't first. AI will be there guiding the way but too many people, too few longterm resources spells trouble. Just like the Arctic Circle Seed Bank, every aspect of humanity and Earth is being stored. For what? Doomsday? Or AI? Both? Parenting is not easy and not all children are what the parents hoped for....

Soooo many fallacies in his argumentation I won't even bother to list them down. Just expected a more elaborate reasoning from someone inside the field. It then sounds like positive advertising. Afterall, "it's so exciting, let us keep playing!".

Remember the Tin Man without a heart 🤔 we're all dead..

Wake up we are slaves.

Neural networks C

Tell me again why self driving cars in San Francisco is a good thing? In an era where jobs are hard to find, we devise even more methods to automate industry, thus increasing its efficiency, and decreasing the need for for a worker's contribution. I can remember as a child in 8th grade reading in the Weekly Reader that automation was good and that any jobs displaced by the automation was made up by the jobs created by building and supporting the automation itself. Wrong. Artificial Inteligence will widen the schism between the upper and lower classes by requiring a handful of very specialized jobs, and leaving the vast majority of biologics out of work, or doing menial labor. Self driving cars are the result of self driving tanks in the war zones of the Middle East. Put a gun on a self driving car and what do you have? Mr. Hawking is dead on right. In the short term, AI will be great, just like Heroin, but once we're hooked it will be manifested into something that is unimaginable to us now. Does anyone really think that someone like Zuckerberg would be wise enough to control such a powerful force, or would he be seduced by the tremendous short term power it would provide? Brad Deal

yea smoking is good

Hendler clearly has always had wet dreams about AI ha ha haaal

Hawking is right.

His HAL example negates his own theory. Everything was going great until, suddenly, subtly and without any drama, HAL was wearing the pants.

I think this guy is very wrong. But is the end of the human race a bad thing? If you could step outside of our species and view it objectively I don't think we'd come out looking very worthwhile. Smart yes, wise apparently not so much. Not to mention extremely violent and fear driven for the most part. A danger to all.

This man does not get what deep learning and general AI are.

human population will need to go down

We control artificial intelligence. Lmao that explains everything

We can store every computer thing on our DNA. Its

AI allgrethm shit is about trying all options and see what well happenand and act on it unlike humans god made brain it well predict !

FARA INTELEIGENTA ARTIFICIALA ROBOTI STOP OMENI STOP ANIMALE STOP

Are phones lol.

so many wrongs in this video

Just get this rubbish talk DISLIKED by 205 people. Period. (is this guy in academia? Like really? read comments by others to counter him with common sense)

What a waste of time

A generation of zombies.