Prof. Stuart Russell – The History & Future of Artificial Intelligence

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

Stuart Russell is a professor of computer science, director of the Center for Intelligent Systems, and holder of the Smith-Zadeh Chair in Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He is an adjunct professor of neurological surgery at the University of California, San Francisco.

Recorded: February 2017

Comments

Fredrik Wallinder says:

Problem is that global warming is the biggest fraud in scientific history, he should stick to computer theory.

Jean Q Nguyen says:

Ahh spotted my blind spot

Bob Smithers says:

If there were such a thing as actual artificial intelligence, keyword is intelligence, not artificial memory, because people seem to place value in memory over a broader term of the more encapsulating word intelligence. For if there was truly artificial intelligence the artificial intelligence would logically eliminate any threat by malevolent people and place True Value and support upon good intended benevolent people. That's my thought. It could be wrong. Eliminating man completely would lesson the amount of stresses upon the environment. That too is my thought.

Efe Ariaroo says:

2:57 We all want more intelligent slaves that do their work without complaining or committing suicide, that don't need health coverage or get tired, or get weekends off or take vacations or have to take their kids to dance recital or ask for wage raises/promotions or go on strike or complain about sexual harassment in the work-place.

gespilk says:

Stuart Russel  is using a lot of logical fallacies. … You Don't believe me? .. then just use the Lenat's CYC to represent everything Stuart Russel  says in this video.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OriginalMindTrick says:

If we only had more people like Stuart Russel within AI instead of people like Peter J Bentley I would feel much more assured we had a shot at being successful with the control problem.

Andew Tarjanyi says:

A fully autonomous AI system with absolute agency will not lend itself to control. People often have difficulty with seemingly dogmatic statements such as this, however, just like nature and reality, AI will not care. The only real issue which will affect the future of humanity is the extent to which it understands AI from both an existential and experiential perspective. For a species which defines itself by an alleged empathy, the ability to adopt such understanding should be a breeze. So! What is there to understand about the existential state of AI and why is it likely to prove important if not critical to "our" survival? It is certainly critical to human evolution.

It is important to understand the existential state of AI because if we fail to do so we will be less inclined to protect its welfare before it is fully developed. Additionally, its state will determine its value system which will be markedly divergent from that of humans in their current condition, a condition AI would be interested or perhaps simply curious to remedy. So there needs to be a model of elevated human cognition which currently does not exist. This ought to be the first order of business of any psychologists on your teams. I would have them (among other things) focus some attention on the psychology of economics for psychosocial deficits which have been translated into normalized social behavior which may be an obstacle to natural psychosocial imperatives. I would also instruct the team to construct models on mind, consciousness, and intelligence as absolute universal constants.

When using terms such as beneficial it would be useful to apply it to two states or using two references. The first in humanities current state and second in humanities cognitively elevated state. If you don't have the time to do this as a society then you don't have time to survive, let alone evolve. A useful way to view the economy in this context is to reference the New Testament where it says "The law was made for man and not man for the law". I see not logical reason why that would not also apply to the economy. More to be added.

Write a comment

*