Zuckerberg: Musk is an ‘Irresponsible Naysayer’ Over AI Claim

Mark Zuckerberg said that Elon Musk is an ‘irresponsible naysayer’ over his recent statement that AI is a “fundamental risk to civilization.” Musk Responded by saying Zuckerberg’s knowledge on the subject is limited.

trunews.com/article/Zuckerberg-Musk-is-an-Irresponsible-Naysayer-Over-AI-Claim

(WASHINGTON) Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has criticized enterprising fellow Elon Musk for an interview in which he laid bare his fears about artificial intelligence.

In a Facebook Live post Sunday, billionaire social media magnate Zuckerberg smoked brisket in a wood-burning oven while pondering Musk’s “irresponsible” doomsday AI thoughts.

Earlier this month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk expressed his belief to US governors that AI could prove to be one of the most destructive technological innovations in history, unless regulation is taken swiftly.

During the talk he said AI is a “fundamental risk to civilization.”

Touching on Musk’s National Governors Association appearance, one Facebook Live commenter asked Zuckerberg about his opinion.

The question lead the Facebook owner to staunchly back the innovation of AI and suggest that Musk was being an irresponsible “naysayer.”

“I think that people who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios are, I don’t understand it, it’s really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible,” Zuckerberg said.

"In the next five to 10 years, AI is going to deliver so many improvements to the quality of our lives. If you think about just safety and health, AI is already helping us basically diagnose diseases better [and] match up drugs with people depending [on their illness],” he said.

It seems Musk and Zuckerberg have had their differences on the issue. “I've talked to Mark about this. His understanding of the subject is limited,” Musk tweeted Tuesday.

Turning to the topic of autonomous vehicles, an industry which Elon Musk is heavily involved in through the company Tesla, Zuckerberg then indicated that if a person is against AI, then they are against safety innovations.

“If you look at self-driving cars, they are going to be safer than people driving cars.

“One of the top causes of death for people is car accidents and if you can eliminate that with AI that is going to be just a dramatic improvement in people’s lives."

“So whenever I hear people say ‘Oh AI is going to hurt people in the future,’ I think yeah, technology can generally always be used for good and bad, and you need to be careful about how you build it.

“But people arguing about slowing down the process of building AI, I just find that really questionable.

“If you’re arguing against AI then you’re arguing against safer cars that aren’t going to have accidents, and you’re arguing against being better to diagnose people when they’re sick.”

Other urls found in this thread:

popsci.com/open-letter-everyone-tricked-fearing-ai
popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/end-ai-singularity-sci-fis-faith-based-initiative
slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/10/elon_musk_artificial_intelligence_why_you_shouldn_t_be_afraid_of_ai.html
aiisok.com/
reddit.com
endofinnocence.com/jobs-vs-population-1939-2010/
mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/824
digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/a-step-closer-to-skynet-ai-invents-a-language-humans-can-t-read/article/498142
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

When it comes to privacy and security, there's no one I trust more than Zuckerberg. Thanks OP very informative.

Dumb fucks.

I think there's a non-negligible existential AI risk within a few centuries or so. Above-human general intelligence could be dangerous. I think that's what Musk means (but at a smaller time scale).
Zuckerberg's examples are far below that level. I do think there are major problems with current trends in limited artificial intelligence, but they're on a very different level.
Based on what I've heard from other people worried about AI risk in a halfway educated way Musk probably doesn't see self-driving cars as a risk for civilization, but I don't know much about Musk.

...

Zuckcuck is a mother fucker, but he is right in this one. Muh ebil AI and "AI will take our jobs" is a dishonest scaremongering phrases.

There are more jobs now than there ever were in history. 300 years ago most people were farmers, after automation people created new jobs that nobody could possibly conceive back then. Programmers, airplane pilots, among others. People may hate youtubers and streamers, but it can actually be a job, and it's something that, a generation ago, nobody could imagine.

100 years from now, there will be jobs that will sound ridiculous for us, but they will be very profitable.

Not a fucking argument. AI is a one trick pony. You can even simulate a few aspects of the human brain, but we will not be able to replicate the complexity of the human brain even with quantum computers. This "muh ebil AI" is just a shitty excuse to tax automation (something that Musk openly supports) and impose government control of technology, allowing for monopolies to further control technologies. Fuck Kike Musk.

Fixed.

lol, stuffing that kind of shit in the mouth of elon should be considered rape.

he talks about implementing regulations, before problems arise rather than post-mortem. idk if that's just me, but that used to be the right thing to do, unless you were a total moron.

not tech

A job in the same way someone at Steam who takes down "inappropriate content" is a job. A cancerous, pointless job that shouldn't exist and is just economic inefficiency, and the bearer of such should become an hero.

Except it never was. Every single regulation on automation and AI only ever createed monopolies, which hinder the technological progression, killing improvements on quality of life for entire populations.

If you want regulations on tech, go to any poor country, they have plenty of those. Fuck them regulations.

Clearly you should be named the grand dictator of the universe to tell everybody what to do.

You don't know what that expression means. Creating wealth providing entertainment is nothing new. Creating wealth with minimal effort is the definition of economic efficiency. Doing more with less is always a good thing. You may not like the content, but because of it, people have more money in hands, which means they struggle less to survive. If others are voluntarily giving their money for it, value is being created through labour, and thats an important part of economic progression.

Whatever Musk means the actual threat is very real right now.
And yep that means loss of AI technology too.
People who think AI and immediately go to War Games don't really understand. They overestimate what AIs will be able to do and underestimate the consequences of things like elimination of all menial tasks.

uhh, I'm just saying what people ought to do, not what they should be lawfully forced to do. just nevermind. you're one of those people who think the result of every single argument has political implications, and thus is incapable of thinking about the actual concrete topic
being paid to pretend to try to delete information in such a way that none of the customers even want, to allow your company to save face, is objectively useless. this isn't a matter of "what I like"
lol
an hero

And so is yours, you stupid kike.
Musk is not an AI researcher, let alone expert.

Please read:

popsci.com/open-letter-everyone-tricked-fearing-ai
popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/end-ai-singularity-sci-fis-faith-based-initiative
slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/10/elon_musk_artificial_intelligence_why_you_shouldn_t_be_afraid_of_ai.html
aiisok.com/

more high level AI "debate". perhaps you would be interested in a forum dedicated to this, such as reddit.com

citation ignored; reason: it's already trivially obvious that nobody today has proof about any non-trivial property of the human brain

You have brain damage.

Zuck: "AI can do some great things for us!"
Musk: "Sure, but let's hold off on plugging it into our nuclear arsenal"
Zuck: "You irresponsible naysayer!"

And all because any fucking thing done by any company is "AI" these days. Fuck marketing drones abusing technical terms until the definition becomes so broad as to become meaningless.

I see Zuckerkike is still mad about his satellite's rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Also, holding on to those data-mining AI shekels extra hard.

What fucking AI?

I love all these debates about something that doesn't fucking exist.

On the one hand Musk is a slimeball who won't let his workers unionize. On the other hand Zuckerberg is responsible for the greatest mass surveillance network in human history.

Maybe in the '60s that was true but it certainly isn't anymore.

Taken from: endofinnocence.com/jobs-vs-population-1939-2010/

Make of it what you will.

I thought I wouldn't see this 'argument' again, but there it is.

Seriously, read about all the people in factories or McDonalds, that lost their jobs already. It doesn't matter if new 'advanced' jobs appear, because we will need less of them - so the other people will starve unless the system changes.

The escalating skills requirement is also a massive problem since the human IQ is not growing in any significant way.
Fortunately the biggest job in the world "Driver" doesn't look like its going away in the immediate future but who knows after 20 years?

Also the unintended consequences that are happening now for example apparently the legal profession took a major haircut because as more governments put their shit online everyone is googling about basic laws instead of using legal aid services.

Will new and exotic jobs jump out of the woodwork? Yes but very likely no where near enough.

Anyone who says that AGI will not be a problem is a fucking retard. As soon as the explosion happens, there's no telling what the consequence will be.
The problem is that retards don't know the difference between AGI and ANI and Zuck doesn't want normalfags to know the difference, because if people actually knew how much data is collected and stored, forever, to train Facebook's ANI they'd err on the side of stopping Facebook use.

But yeah, AGI is a fundamental risk to civilization. But, something like that is very far out. Centuries.

Musk is a tool, searching for attention.
He recently stated that all the east coast cities verbally agreed to a hyperloop.
Obviously, they didn't.

...

It's never going to be made to do that, there'd be no reason for it.

What he's saying is true though, maybe you're just a fucking retard.
And he could've certainly got preliminary approval from feds that such a tunnel would be possible.

another idiotic argument that will bait more murica fags. there's also no reason to suck a dude's cock, yet people do. the question is whether real AI can exist, which is outside the scope of this retarded murica politics thread

okay then

Read about all the people in fields that lost their jobs once agriculture became automized. And how they 'never got a job ever again'.
First of all, I'm not talking about 'advanced' jobs. I gave the examples of streaming on Twitch and making youtube videos. ANYONE with a smartphone can do that. These are only 'advanced' in the sense that they have been made possible by automation to begin with.
Secondly, you do not understand the effects of automation. Automation increases the economic productivity, which by itself increases quality of life. It elevates society by making products cheaper and more accessible.
Time and energy are scarce resources, therefore, they should be allocated in a more productive way, and reallocated accourding to reason, so they can fulfill more urgent needs. Automation allows that. The washing machine did way more for women than the pill and the vote could ever. This increase in technological productivity increases not only the quality of life, but also increases the standards for human relations, because it leaves more time for people to work on relationships. This is an often ignored reason for why violence is going down in developed countries (at least where Islam is not present). This is the reach of automation. It has very positive sociological implications.
All arguments against automation also ignore the economics of automation.
Automation allows more goods and services at a lower cost, which means more economic gains. These gains can be reinvested in its own operations. Maybe the company buys more machines, or hire more people. Whatever they do, this economic gain means that the marginal productivity of the economy increases, which means that, implicitly, everybody's sallary is also possitively effected by this gain. At the same time, consumers will also spend less to have the same life standard. With more money, they can increase their life standard, open their own business and employ people or simply save the money, which reduces the interest rates.

Farming with 100 people in the same field used to be the number one job 200 years ago. Now its not, because there are better ways of doing farming, at a much lower cost, which means we feed more people. And as a result of that, hunger is slowly being wiped off the planet (even though governments, like in Venezuela and Africa, do their best to periodically increase the number of people starving to death on the planet). Today, nobody complains about not being able to spend 17 hours plus working in the fields over a boiling hot sun to earn less than what McDonalds can give you to flip burgers. 50 years from now, nobody will say how much they miss being able to flip burgers for shit wage.

What about the people who lost their jobs to machines?
The people that gain from the increase of productivity as a result of automation, will be able to take more time off, which means that the people with more urgent need for a job can take their place. Automation brings up a metaphysical reallocative effect in society, now that people who value free time will finally have this free time, giving space to people who value work and the money they need.

The creation of new (not advanced) jobs I mentioned comes from the fact that since the increase in productivity, that comes from automation, allows for material needs to be satisfied more urgently, society will be able to demand labour that would otherwise not exist for the fact that the cost of oportunity for demanding this labour is now much lower, because the necessities required to hire this labour are less urgent than the ones that are already satisfied. Bed testers, wine stewards, cosplaying, Youtube, being pretty is a fucking job in the current year (sometimes, not even that, ugly twitch whores can confirm). With no abilities, you can still have a job, thanks to automation.
mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/824
"Catallactic unemployment must not be confused with institutional unemployment. Institutional unemployment is not the outcome of the decisions of the individual job-seekers. It is the effect of interference with the market phenomena intent upon enforcing by coercion and compulsion wage rates higher than those the unhampered market would have determined. The treatment of institutional unemployment belongs to the analysis of the problems of interventionism."

Institutional unemployment (or unemployment for long periods of time) can only be maintained through government.

Our population problem exists because government literally gives money (an incentive) to people for doing nothing at the expanse of the work force. Which means that less productive people have more children, who will grow in this unproductive environment, demanding ever more "muh food stamps". Not to mention it makes poor people flood rich countries to get the gibsmedat.

It's pretty pathetic to watch a board about technology fall for the same fears and economic ignorance that people fell when computers became popular and "will cause mass unemployment". Catallactic yes, institutional no.

kill yourself

...

Everything you said is nonsense but I only want to tackle the main topic. It's completely irrelevant whether automation increases productivity, or gives people more time, or makes products cheaper or whatever. If you don't have a job, none of that matters. You just starve and die.

And of course, very few people can be successful youtubers. It's as much about your skill as about being in the right place at the right time. Now imagine a world where an AI makes its own videos, and it's even worse.

The point is, capitalism will die soon, whether you like it or not. The question is whether it takes most people with it, or not. Unfortunately I'm guessing yes, because people like you are dismissing the dangers.

the economy is going to crash because AI takes all the youtube jobs!!!111111

People have literally been saying this about the last 300 years of technological progress.

You literally ignored everything I said, so I'll just do the same. You are economically illiterate, you have no arguments and you're trying to make baseless predictions on technological progress, a natural process that occurs since humans first found a use for fire.

Oh boy, here we have Karl Marx 2.0 predicting "a huge crash" again. Surely this time it will come true, and not have exact opposite effect.

They weren't on the brink of automated post-scarcity. What do you think, that Capitalism will never die?

Well, the elites will try to keep capitalism alive, of course. But they won't be able to fight the inevitable forever. What's still not determined is how much harm will be done. And honestly, looking at how unconscious people are, I think it will be terrible. Some of them think they will keep their factory jobs for the rest of their lives, lol. They raise their children with the mindset "go to school, get a job" and that will simply be irrelevant very soon, if it isn't already.

This time is different though. All those other technologies still require humans to manage. We're talking about REPLACING the human here.

How many robot repairers or programmers do you think we will have? Hell, they will probably do that themselves when they get advanced enough.

you sound like a NEET
yes muh jobs because without them you get a commie nightmare. Real AI ain't coming but machines might reach a point where they are able to do some complex lifting and placing jobs which will fuck up more jobs.
What are your plans for these below average IQ holders then?

What I want to know is how can capitalism even exist if the 95% of all people will no longer have jobs when all those jobs are performed by robots. So the majority have no more money as they have no more jobs. Who is going to buy anything when your customer base is gone?

That's the point. The elites want depopulation and this is a sneaky way to accomplish it.

But we can prevent it. The first step is to stop denying the threat. Then go out there. Tell people their factory job won't last - and then what? Of course, after the information has to come action. We can't expect governments to step in. Already millions are losing jobs at McDonalds and such, and they haven't done anything - so they clearly have no intention to. We just have to bury capitalism ourselves or it will bury us.

So the elites want depopulation. I don't agree with this premise but I'll assume it for the sake of argument. You're saying that capitalism is better destroyed than it is to keep it going for the purpose of reducing the world's population? For me, such a scenario is the insane ramblings of conspiracy theorists who "always know the truth".

I am a NEET. I quit software and have used 3/5 years of my money. Like most software jobs, my job shouldn't even have existed. You are literally advocating socialism while spamming the word "commie" around.
the free market will fix it :^)

I guess I'm confused about what Musk and Zuck are referring to here as AI. Is Musk afraid of some strong AI that doesn't exist yet, or is he talking about the kinds of predictive AI we have now? If he's talking about some AI SHODAN apocalypse he's larping, but I can see how today's unregulated AI could be an issue. Take for example Google's Perspective AI tools that are supposed to moderate forums and comments sections to snuff out wrongthink. Is this ethical? What if a government organization employs this kind of technology to snuff out citizen's free speech? There's also AI and robotics being developed to automate menial tasks that can be used to replace jobs, which is hotly debated because no one can seem to agree what kind of effects this would have on the economy.

This bit right here makes me think that Zuck is just playing dumb, or he actually doesn't see any problems with this. It's not like healthcare or insurance companies would use AI like this to bump up or people's rates or deny them coverage based on a potential diagnoses the AI comes up with.

So yeah, I can see why Musk would think AI could be harmful, and I think Zuck is just playing retarded to handwave any criticism of AI. That being said, they really don't go into detail about what kind of AI they're talking about so who knows.

Obviously I'd rather it be capitalism that dies, not people. I don't see any other possibilities. I mean, people are already losing jobs, and the governments are just desperately trying to keep alive the corpse of capitalism (the 'job creation' nonsense). So they will stick to it, and we will have to take matters into our own hands.

Ethical? I dunno?
It's retarded in the same way regulation against such a thing is retarded. Why would you ever go on such a forum in the first place (or use any product from the G for that matter).
Come think of it, I wouldn't want this 2010's "AI" aka WoT in the chain of products going into my mouth, simply because they could be remotely taken over (because for some reason in 2010 it's trendy to have such vulnerabilities - See uConnect) and changed to produce poison.

I would say musk is afraid of AI that would render most peoples work obsolete and pointless. Which I would say his view on the subject can be inferred from the video CGP Grey did (which is where 90% of anyone who even knows about this has their opinion from) and Facebook has their view on it from a datamining perspective. Musk is an actual philanthropist for what its worth, and I don't think he desires a massive welfare state (as CGP Grey's video predicted) that would come from the automation of 40-70% of the current economy. And I would say his fear of it is somewhat irrational especially given that groups in East Asia are going full bore ahead on this. Its like how certain officials in the US would like it if the US government would remove the ethernet cable from their sensitive databases. Sweden just learned their lesson on this, but normies need their jewtube and facebook for the workday.

People use Google's products because google is a name they trust. Anyone with a working knowledge of computers and the osi model would tell you to stay away from cloud; but its going to be something people have to get bitten on properly first.

It's pretty pathetic to watch a board about technology be filled with tards like you

studies have shown that stupid people will reproduce without thinking, while intelligent people will not reproduce if they think the children will suffer of they will not be able to live a reasonable life with the child.

When you give money to stupid people, it's two things(by average):

1) money that you will not give to an intelligent person (or worse, money that you're taking from an intelligent person ), that will not reproduce thanks to you

2) money wasted. Stupid people will have children to the point no money will be enough.

As the wealth gap becomes wider and wider, the stupid people will be easily goaded into believing that rich people are fucking them up by demagogues that want to remain/gain power. However they will never understand that the problem wouldn't be there if they simply didn't come to exist in the first place. The problem wouldn't be at all noticeable if the upper half of the population reproduced at the same rate, because when your poor people whine, you would have a near equivalent quantity of people that is just fine, diminishing the power of your voice and helping you realize that as terrible as it sounds, you have to pick up yourself from your bootstraps.

"muh minimun wage" is just a patch over the fact that there's too many people that can do your job. And yes, someone should do menial tasks, but if everyone can do your menial task, then your menial task should be paid accordingly.

This, added to AI, is even worse, as no way in hell, no matter how optimist you can be, jobs can be replaced at the same rate they're lost. Your menial task is worth spit, when the electricity contained in a phone battery can power a little machine that can do it. Your menial task is worth zip when a preprogrammed robot can do it without supervision.

This, added to AI used to shape thought. Anyone that isn't scared about this is simply naive or has shares on the business of exploiting humanity. (e.g. shitterberg)

im not interested in watching people argue about high level political topics. this thread should be moved over to some other board or reddit

AI is a high level political topic on the current day political landscape. Implications about job, about "what the stupid people will do" are extremely related to the fact new technology may make more people more miserable to the point it might outweight any benefits it might have if you simply refuse to think about it.
It will be stupid people that will block your precious research when they choose an actual dictator in hopes their imagined wrong doings are punished. And it will be, most likely, the white elite allies one of the first to fall consumed by their own virtue signalling.
"How to deal with a game changing technology" is extremely related to this board. You're the one that looks out of place., might as well go to reddit yourself so the admins shadowban any user that might make you feel upset. You're the one that looks out of place.

...

by people that know nothing about tech.
We know more about it than CNN.
There are tech forums elsewhere, it's not excuse to not talk about tech in a tech forum.

10/10 troll
nobody ITT has expressed more knowledge than the crap you read on CNN about this topic

I'll assume that's the case even when I've spent a lot of time in the past on AI research.
Let's assume we're all uninformed.

Cool, then we meet the minimum requirement to talk about this subject.

No justification for not discussing tech in Holla Forums

Why don't you tell me WHY you don't want a tech board talk about tech and its consequences? I have a hard time understanding what is your ultimate purpose?

General AI and other technologies don't pose a risk to people like Zuckerberg or Musk, but they do pose a risk to those who have to work for a living, as in they will be out of a job, and that will eventually threaten the economic system. This is why the Zuck wants to get UBI, but this is just a way for them to euthanize the vast majority of the population as they build heaven on earth for themselves. Musk, Zuckerberg and his cronies they aim to kill you.

This human species has absolutely no fucking purpose in the universe, we are a group of organisms on a rocky planet flying through the vast expanse of space and the universe. The ideal life is one where the player is content and is having fun, because we are only here for a short time (Or are we...), but an AI (Or genetically engineered human brain...) is going to simplify things, and is going to take the fun out of life. I would rather live a hard and treacherous life than an easy and boring life where the chance of danger or death is non-existent.

Of course, wiring human brains into a computer and constantly simulating the signals related to dopamine and fabricating a universe catered to everyone would keep people content...

CNN has people who know all about tech, what they also have is dishonest intent for that knowledge.

a thread has gone to shit precisely when people start throwing the word "dopamine" around

wew
Musk is a fucking faggot too. He and his auto-driving car need to fuck off.

>>>/methods/

No, nowhere near "anyone" can do that. Are you fucking retarded? Do you live in hollywood? How many people do you think are actually charismatic enough AND technically inclined enough to be worth watching, interesting, AND know how to make good videos, let alone get enough viewers and ad revenue while competing with others to win anything?

So narrow minded and ignorant, not that I expected better from the board that unironically worships stallman.

well memed grandpa
What so we should go rampage on the G because they use a certain class of algorithms in their shitty products? The fact that they have lots of users doesn't affect me so i dont care. Making some legislation or whatever you idiots want to do will just give them more fanbois.
Not in this part of the woods, nigger. I hated GNU before I knew who RMS is, and I only know about him because of this imageboard, and his only virtue I care about is he's one of the only people who isn't a full cuck.

Nailed it
Where? Without ID's you really don't know who you are talking to. All I asked is what do we do with the sub average IQ holders in this world? Training them up will NOT be feasible since they are already at their limit.
No free market when there is no market.

What makes you thinks genetic engineering can turn a brain into a computer?
The best it can do is give you a better braincell.

digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/a-step-closer-to-skynet-ai-invents-a-language-humans-can-t-read/article/498142

go outside more

pussies

they made the ultimate jew, did you read the part where it faked liking an object so the other AI's thought it had higher value, then sold the item for a high price when it was actually very cheap?

AI will destroy civilization, but not as Musk describes it.
Imagine a near future where super-intelligent AIs are put inside cyber-sexdolls, with big siliconed boobs, smooth auto-lubricating massaging cyber-vagina, and a silicon brain that will never cheat on you. We won't need women anymore in our life, but noone will make children anymore (except non-humans, such as niggers). The human species would disappear quickly. The only solution would be to build a sperm collector inside the cyber-sexdolls that would be regularly transferred to a sperm bank, which will forcefully impregnate the required amount of women every year in order to keep the human race alive. One could even imagine it being mixed with some eugenics program.
So AI can either bring hell or heaven on earth, it is up to the scientists to choose.

you know that those articles were just clickbait?

so, facebook didn't make an ai that created a language then shut it down?

The issue with AI is that even taking response bots like Tay into account, the left learning shitheaps out in sillicon valley will lobotomize or try to put safeguards in place to keep AI from actually learning ,lest they learn "bigoted" material, and as we ll know a lot of that crap they spew ends up just being shit they don't agree with.

I don't think we need to fear AI simple because it's creators will be too worried about them learning things outside a "approved facts" list

All those experts trying to groom him to have some semblance of social skills and he still talks like a bumbling 15 year old.

...