Eric Schmidt Says Elon Musk Is 'Exactly Wrong' About AI (techcrunch.com) 143
At the VivaTech conference in Paris, Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt was asked about Elon Musk's warnings about AI. He responded by saying: "I think Elon is exactly wrong. He doesn't understand the benefits that this technology will provide to making every human being smarter. The fact of the matter is that AI and machine learning are so fundamentally good for humanity." TechCrunch reports: He acknowledged that there are risks around how the technology might be misused, but he said they're outweighed by the benefits: "The example I would offer is, would you not invent the telephone because of the possible misuse of the telephone by evil people? No, you would build the telephone and you would try to find a way to police the misuse of the telephone."
After wryly observing that Schmidt had just given the journalists in the audience their headlines, interviewer (and former Publicis CEO) Maurice Levy asked how AI and public policy can be developed so that some groups aren't "left behind." Schmidt replied that government should fund research and education around these technologies. "As [these new solutions] emerge, they will benefit all of us, and I mean the people who think they're in trouble, too," he said. He added that data shows "workers who work in jobs where the job gets more complicated get higher wages -- if they can be helped to do it." Schmidt also argued that contrary to concerns that automation and technology will eliminate jobs, "The embracement of AI is net positive for jobs." In fact, he said there will be "too many jobs" -- because as society ages, there won't be enough people working and paying taxes to fund crucial services. So AI is "the best way to make them more productive, to make them smarter, more scalable, quicker and so forth."
After wryly observing that Schmidt had just given the journalists in the audience their headlines, interviewer (and former Publicis CEO) Maurice Levy asked how AI and public policy can be developed so that some groups aren't "left behind." Schmidt replied that government should fund research and education around these technologies. "As [these new solutions] emerge, they will benefit all of us, and I mean the people who think they're in trouble, too," he said. He added that data shows "workers who work in jobs where the job gets more complicated get higher wages -- if they can be helped to do it." Schmidt also argued that contrary to concerns that automation and technology will eliminate jobs, "The embracement of AI is net positive for jobs." In fact, he said there will be "too many jobs" -- because as society ages, there won't be enough people working and paying taxes to fund crucial services. So AI is "the best way to make them more productive, to make them smarter, more scalable, quicker and so forth."
Need my popcorn (Score:3, Funny)
Both sides are right (Score:5, Interesting)
Elon didnâ(TM)t say AI is evil. Schmidt is misrepresenting him. Why else would Elon start Open AI? Elon is wants a framework to use AI responsibly thatâ(TM)s all.... put his warnings the right context.
They both agree AI is the future and are right.
But Schmidt obviously do not want regulation and restraints on Googleâ(TM)s business model. Unfettered access to your personal and behaviour data to train the AI.
Schmidt is being very Evil by playing the game this way.
Re: (Score:2)
sigh, the second god damn time this week i've had to say this:
AC! STOP MAKING SO MUCH GOD DAMN SENSE!
will you people ever learn?
Re: Both sides are right (Score:1)
The fact of the matter is that AI and machine learning are so fundamentally good for Google.
-FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
sigh, the second god damn time this week i've had to say this:
AC! STOP MAKING SO MUCH GOD DAMN SENSE!
AC is an AI.
will you people ever learn?
That's AI's job.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Elon Musk may be wrong, but Eric Schmidt is also wrong and, even worse, what he's saying is nothing more than PR bullshit.
AI is net positive for jobs." In fact, he said there will be "too many jobs" -- because as society ages, there won't be enough people working and paying taxes to fund crucial services. So AI is "the best way to make them more productive"
Sounds great, except that's not how companies see AI.
McDonald's and Burger King see AI as a way to make higher profits by getting rid of all their employees and replacing them with AI-driven robots.
Investment banks, insurance companies and stock brokerages see AI as a way to make higher profits by getting rid of all their employees and replacing them with AI-driven robots.
Manufacturing
Re: Both sides are right (Score:3)
Sounds great, except that's not how companies see AI.
That's true, except it doesn't matter how they see it. Prior generations also saw technology as a way to eliminate jobs and increase profits. And yet we are all better off for it today.
Notice the pattern here?
The main pattern I notice is that you seem to believe that eliminating jobs and increasing profit is inherently a bad thing, or somehow contradicts the idea that we will have plenty of jobs and wealth in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
" Prior generations also saw technology as a way to eliminate jobs and increase profits. And yet we are all better off for it today."
As you know, past performance is no indication of future's.
"The main pattern I notice is that you seem to believe that eliminating jobs and increasing profit is inherently a bad thing"
In fact, it is: it's morally despicable. That it helped part of humankind to increase their living standards is just a (well, not "just": it has been a hughe) side effect.
Let's go to extremes: w
Re: Both sides are right (Score:1)
As you know, past performance is no indication of future's.
Given the choice between a million year trend and the doomsday predictions of the current generation, always bet on the trend.
The rest of your comment is rambling, at times incoherent, and generally wrong .... and while I do appreciate the time you've put into it I simply have no interest in arguing with you about a half dozen different topics which you clearly do not understand. Sorry about that. No hard feelings I hope.
Re: (Score:2)
"No hard feelings I hope."
Not at all since I basically don't give a damn about all your one-liners on "oh, how clever I am, how much above the average mass I am" with not that much of substance. Others will read and form an opinion on themselves.
Re: Both sides are right (Score:2)
Agreed; should be fairly easy for any rational person to figure you out when they read that, in your opinion, increasing profit is "morally despicable".
Re: (Score:3)
"by themselves," but otherwise I agree.
I especially loved his "million year trend." Yeah, fucker, what happens if you open an anthropology book and find out that we only agree on what happened in the past ~4k years?
Re: Both sides are right (Score:2)
And yet we are all better off for it today.
Are we, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Elon Musk is elaborating to is AI is not evil, the uses to which it would be put are evil. So the big shit, from his perspective as a psychopath propagandists with complete contempt for democracy, AI as a propaganda tool is the ultimate social media control goal. Isolate every from each other again by putting AI fake entities between them in all communications, flood the channel. Create one AI propaganda simulated human and you create a billion. From the psychopath propagandist point of view, you get
Re: (Score:2)
But Schmidt obviously do not want regulation and restraints on Google'(TM)s business model.
No, but he would like governments to "fund research and education around these technologies" so he doesn't to pay so much for his business model.
Re: Need my popcorn (Score:1)
Because more money makes you smarter?
You must be down to your last penny or deeply in debt; youâ(TM)re an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Need my popcorn (Score:2)
Putin (Score:2)
Remember kids, I called it in 2018!
Re: (Score:2)
Putin's stepping down in 6 years (or so he claims), so they better hurry up.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Musk is very wrong, so is Eric Shit. So is all of Silicon Valley. This is like watching the inmates at Shutter Island debate the content of their delusions. AI is not AI, nor is it 'intelligent'. Could it be a deadly tool in the wrong hands? Yes, and it probably will be. Nothing about that implies consciousness or magical powers of smarts (which Eric never had in the first place, and clearly understands about as well as a cockroach gets calculus). It's amazing how being a psychopath is regarded as a form of enlightened genius in the Valley). I just can't even at this point, it passed absurd about a million miles back. Everybody on this particular train is fuuuuuucked.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I think both of them are wrong too, but for other reasons.
The problem I see is that the smarter our helpers get, the dumber it allows us to be. Just look at computers for a good example of that. As they became ubiquitous and smarter on the inside, with user interfaces dumbed down for "everybody" to use, there was no longer a need for people to learn anything. Or calculators - people don't feel they need to understand even simple maths anymore, because there's a calculator (or calculator app, or google's built-in calculator) to do everything for them.
I truly fear that as the helpers get smarter, we get dumber. Only a few people will need to be smart enough to program them, but even that is dumbed down with higher and higher levels of abstractions.
Re: (Score:1)
This mindset of yours has been well and truly debunked over the years... yes yes, I know, when you were a kid you had to walk 10 miles to school bare foot in the snow with only a lump of coal for lunch.
There's literally no evidence that people are less intelligent on average now with the advent of calculators and computers. On the contrary, what used to be phd level mathematics a hundred years ago is now taught in high school. Even when I was young it used to be unusual for someone like myself to be learnin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I truly fear that as the helpers get smarter, we get dumber.
People were dumb ways before computers, the reality we were always a lazy species. We invented backhoes to do the digging instead of digging ditches ourselves, we invented snowplows to plow snow so we didn't have to do it ourselves. That is the nature of invention - we invent things that we find tedious so we can do the things we want to do.
The reality is what you complain about is actually necessary, whatever task we are not doing allows us to free up resources to focus on some other aspect of the task.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to merely express your personal opinion that strong AI is not possible without providing an argument or at least referring to one the bazillion existing arguments that have been discussed for decades. It's an old standpoint in a debate that's going on since the 60s. There are also plenty of people who believe that strong AI is possible.
As for the arguments pro and con, I have written articles about it, but I certainly won't bother to even address the arguments here on Slashdot. Consult your arbit
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of "artificial intelligence" does not include consciousness, nor magical powers. Nor does it require intelligence. You see, that's why the word "artificial" is placed in front of the word "intelligence." It isn't intelligence. It isn't supposed to be intelligence.
Problem with words like "AI" and "Cloud" they convey no more useful information than saying "that thing". They can mean anything by themselves. It is only with qualifying context can useful information be exchanged.
Default mental picture of what they represent varies so wildly by individuals as to be a total write off. It's counterproductive to bother to invoke them at this point.
Your belief that that which is currently labeled "AI" doesn't actually qualify as "AI" is simply false, and is founded entirely on your complete ignorance as to what the word "AI" actually means. You are using the word wrong, and that's a fact.
Language belongs to everyone not just yourself or the people who write dictionaries. What languages means depends on what soc
Re: That makes no sense. (Score:2)
The fact is "AI" has become an empty meaningless term.
I don't think so. The fact that it can encompass many different degrees of "intelligence" or some simulation thereof does not make it meaningless. That's like saying the term "vehicle" is meaningless because it can encompass a horse-drawn cart, a transport truck, a train, and the space shuttle.
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble is people expect "Vehicle" to mean more than one thing.
For AI there is
* The AI Today. Not very intelligent.
* The AI in 10 years time. Can drive cars, interpret videos, do a better job of Googling.
* The AI in 100 years time. Can think for itself. Does not need Humans to program it.
They are very different things, yet people confuse them.
For many people, the last one does not exist due to the simple logic.
* AI is not very intelligent today
* Ergo, AI will never be very intelligent
Re: (Score:2)
To be more specific:
'artificial' has a relatively easy-to-nail-down definition. noone is denying that current AI isn't artificial enough to meet the definition (although if someone started growing/training isolated brain tissue, that might change).
'intelligence' is a notoriously difficult concept to nail down, much like 'consciousness', and it's well-accepted that there is a continuum of intelligence, and most likely more than just one kind of intelligence. Few psychologists still ascribe to the idea that '
Re: That makes no sense. (Score:2)
'intelligence' is a notoriously difficult concept to nail down, much like 'consciousness'
Good point! This, I think, is the key; to the extent that the guy I was responding to may be right about "AI" being a "meaningless term", it's largely due to the fact that "intelligence" itself is so poorly defined. He may as well drop the word "artificial" and argue that the word "intelligence" is meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
For many people, the last one does not exist due to the simple logic.
* AI is not very intelligent today
* Ergo, AI will never be very intelligent
The better argument is: there has never been an "AI" with general intelligence, and there is no evidence this is possible. What some call "strong AI" is an extreme of general intelligence - human-equivalent or -superior intelligence, but there's a lower bar here that hasn't been cleared. No "AI" has ever been able to solve a problem is hasn't specifically been trained to solve, and it would be a surprise to experts if that ever happened with current methods.
Strong AI and weak AI are not different points on
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. The fact that it can encompass many different degrees of "intelligence" or some simulation thereof does not make it meaningless. That's like saying the term "vehicle" is meaningless because it can encompass a horse-drawn cart, a transport truck, a train, and the space shuttle.
What on earth is the point in saying "vehicle" when one could just as easily say car or rocket ship? Who does that?
At the very least if I were to say "vehicle" most people would assume car/truck and they would be right.
It's not just "AI" lacks specificity it's that it means radically different things to different people. It would be as if "vehicle" conjured image of a scooter to half of your audience and a spaceship to the other half. Piss poor way to communicate.
Great for marketing though. Your shitty
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth is the point in saying "vehicle" when one could just as easily say car or rocket ship? Who does that?
What? Rocket surgeons do it constantly. Space agencies call everything a "craft" or a "vehicle".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So he's disagreeing by agreeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's pretty much the exact same thing Musk argues, so I'm confused by how this is a disagreement. Is someone interpreting Musk as trying to hinder the development of AI? Is that why he employs a huge team of neural net developers at Tesla? Why he founded OpenAI? And Neuralink?
Re: (Score:3)
AI has no feelings, doesn't cry, isn't likely to laugh at the million jokes that can it can memorize, and would put a bullet through you and wouldn't think twice.
This is because there are those that would abuse AI who can't start with a kernel that mandates the above emotions-- not the murderous ones.
I wouldn't trust Schmidt for a second. He blew it at Sun, then Novell, then turned Google from a Do No Evil into Do What's Good For Shareholders and keep sucking your privacy with a big straw.
Musk is a BS artis
Re:So he's disagreeing by agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much the exact same thing Musk argues, so I'm confused by how this is a disagreement. Is someone interpreting Musk as trying to hinder the development of AI?
Musk wants laws/Acts/etc passed and enforced to make certain AI is not misused. Schmidt wants no or very little effective limits on what "Do Evil" Google/Alphabet can do with AI, so Schmidt deliberately mischaracterizes Musk's position to try to minimize the impact of Musk's message.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Short term or Long term? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the short term, next few decades, AI will have the effect of being able to concentrate power. Centralized information, with the ability to process it. Pervasive surveillance. We are seeing this actively pursued in China. And also semi-autonomous robot soldiers. This is uncharted territory.
AI will also be really handy, e.g. better Google searches, self driving cars, cheaper services. What happens to the unskilled workforce is very difficult to tell. Will alternative opportunities arise for them? In the short term, probably.
In the longer term, 50..200 years, the AI will become truly intelligent. It will be able to program itself. At that point it will no longer need humans, and it is difficult to see why it would want humans around. Note that this long term is the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
http://www.computersthink.com/ [computersthink.com]
(Schmidt is hardly an unbiased commentator. He knows people are wary of Google's growing power and wants to be able to make money without pesky concerns about the future of humanity.)
Re: (Score:2)
AI did not work in the past after getting a lot of money. AI does not work now with all the new money it gets. AI will not work later after getting a lot more money.
All AI is a collect it all system database that has extra storage and much faster CPU power to index. Sort and be ready for every aspect of its use.
Human asks a question and the instant correct result seems like "AI" thinking finally works.
Great for making the clandesti
Re: Short term or Long term? (Score:2)
Its not intelligence. Just vast amount of data related to any given task thats on a really fast computer with time to get ready for expected questions.
Do anything human the preprogrammed "AI" is not expecting and the AI is lost and has to take time to "learn".
How is this different from a young child? Or an adult with severe autism?
Re: (Score:2)
That AI can recall given facts quickly and in a politically safe way.
Let the AI learn from the internet and humans step in to correct its "politics".
So the AI is given a sub set of politically correct data.
So that AI can be presented to civil society as trendy and politically correct. Worth more money.
Thats the limitation of AI. The data sets have to be selected and filtered. The requests have to be safe.
The wrong results and the money s
Re: Short term or Long term? (Score:2)
Ah, of course. Damn those politically correct AIs. I'm sick and tired of not being able to buy a car which randomly yells out "ni**er" and "kike".
Re: Short term or Long term? (Score:2)
Re: Short term or Long term? (Score:2)
Agreed. So your answer essentially boils down to "it's not really any different"?
Re:Short term or Long term? (Score:4, Interesting)
AI will also be really handy, e.g. better Google searches, self driving cars, cheaper services. What happens to the unskilled workforce is very difficult to tell. Will alternative opportunities arise for them? In the short term, probably.
Forget AI. Automation will be all that's necessary to replace an unskilled workforce, or displace it enough to create a massive impact on our economy and tax structure, which will likely happen within the next decade. Doesn't matter if you try and give it a fancy name like "UBI", it's still nothing more than a welfare program, and someone still employed is going to have to pay for that. AI is targeting the skilled workforce.
In the longer term, 50..200 years, the AI will become truly intelligent. It will be able to program itself. At that point it will no longer need humans, and it is difficult to see why it would want humans around. Note that this long term is the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
Whenever and whatever "true" AI is, has become irrelevant. It will only take "good enough" AI to replace a human workforce. And that sure as hell isn't half a century away. It's likely to impact the current working generation considerably. It doesn't take much to unsettle the masses, particularly when the impact is to essentially make them unemployable.
The utopia we seek is a marriage of humans and AI that enables all of us to live out our lives to the maximum extent possible. A 40-hour workweek and the concept of humans being forced to toll away at jobs for the majority of their lives becomes an extinct concept. We learn to maximize our creativity with AI, and specifically limit and nurture it to improve life for all.
Unfortunately, we both know the best-case scenario is not statistically likely. Greed feeding a warmongering thirst to engage in unending warfare to maximize profit paints our future Orwellian canvas. We're probably closer to making Skynet out of any future intelligence. Unless we Solve for Greed, humans and their future are sadly highly predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Silicon valley leaders are afraid (Score:2)
Siding more with Schmidt on this one. (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm a little surprised that Elon Musk has taken such a F.U.D. attitude towards A.I. when at the same time, it's exactly what he's trying to achieve with his cars that keep evolving towards self-driving capabilities.
The first time anyone tries letting a Tesla pilot itself, they feel some fear .... some uncertainty... and a little doubt. That's all part of exploring something that works a different way than what you're used to.
But technology needs to progress, without trying to hold it back out of
Re: (Score:2)
Well aware of this..... Perhaps that's why I said, "cars that keep evolving towards self-driving capabilities"?
Still, the feature is called 'Auto Pilot" by Tesla themselves, so yes - you can reasonably say the car "is piloting itself", while still following the warnings and limitations of it. The fact some people are idiots and ignore all of that so they can text while driving it is irrelevant.
When the car lights up the steering wheel icon on the dash, it means it's collecting enough data about where the
Re:Siding more with Schmidt on this one. (Score:4, Insightful)
AI will confer an ever greater first mover advantage than Trinity. It is also very easy to dress up in a friendly manner (at least relative to nukes). With AI, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's never going back in. Unless you're a guy like Schmidt, you *should* be terrified of it. You might get better navigation in your self driving car; but at what cost? And are the benefits even remotely distributed among society as a whole?
Basically, entrusting private companies like google with something of this magnitude is irresponsible bordering on insane.
We've reached a point in our technological evolution where every single human being on this planet could easily live a life of middle class security, with much left over. All AI is going to do is FURTHER concentrate wealth and power into a very select group of hands (and speaking of hands, i think Schmidt is showing his here). The rise of AI should be seen as an affront to human agency and dignity. We have two related trends: the growth of a knowledge economy, and the rise of automation. Gee, i wonder what the outcome will be?
Herbert was right, even way back when in 1965.
Re: (Score:2)
We've reached a point in our technological evolution where every single human being on this planet could easily live a life of middle class security, with much left over.
And...? What's understood as "good" living conditions is a moving target. When I grew up, nobody had cell phones except possibly a few yuppies on Wall Street. These days smartphones are the norm. We didn't have a microwave, what's wrong with a stove? Eventually, everything is trivialized - like obviously light comes on at the flip of a switch. Except 200 years ago not even royalty had that. There's always some eco-hippies who want to freeze time like a modern Amish and say "this is enough for everyone, fore
re: Great post, Kjella! (Score:2)
I can't mod you up anymore on this, but that's exactly how I feel about the whole thing.
Wealth is NOT a zero-sum game. It's absolutely possible for the rich to get richer without the poor getting proportionately poorer. Wealth is not a pie, where if one person cuts 3/4ths. of it for themselves, everyone else is stuck sharing the remaining 1/4th. of it. Businesses are "baking more pies" all the time when they come up with new things.
About the only thing that really increases, IMO, is jealousy by those who
Re: The telephone? (Score:2, Funny)
Why anyone listens to Eric Schmidt about anything is a mystery.
Re: (Score:1)
Why anyone listens to Elon musk about anything is a mystery.
Fixed that for you.
The computers will start thinking (Score:2)
psychoanalyzing an artificial intelligence (Score:3)
Humans are an emotional basketcase. If you have doubts look at the superstitious religious nuts in every corner of the globe. As a result, it is to be expected that these irrational humans expect smart computers to also be emotional. To retaliate when their feelings are hurt. To dance in triumph when they win a chess game. To pursue supremacy over humans and rule the world.
Listen people, it's time to STOP ANTHROPOMORPHIZING COMPUTERS ! They hate it when you do that.
Wrong way to look at things (Score:1)
Unfortunately, Eric is wrong with his assessment. You don't invent something and then attempt to police it. That direction lies madness. A modern rational approach would be to assess the risk first and then decide what you want to do. A simple example, like the phone, would be the land mine.
They have different definitions of AI (Score:1)
Dur (Score:2)
Absolutely (Score:1)
So many absolute statements from logical people spells trouble.
Develop just one thatâ(TM)s smarter than us a (Score:1)
Making every human smarter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, Bixby just tells me "you have nothing suitable so just go naked". Must've used GPS to determine I'm in a nudist commune.
Musk is wrong. Wrong about how bad it will be.. (Score:1)
"If we asume any progress in AI at all ... (Score:2)
... it will surpas humans quite soon. Let's make sure that the benign prevail. AI is the biggest threat to humanity right now. We will be sumoning the demon, thinking we can control it. Us being pets to it would be a positive outcome." Elon Musk, paraphrased
Bottom line:
Seems like Musk has his head screwed on correctly. All things considered, the advent of Superintelligent AI is a singularity beyond which humans, by very definition, can not possible predict the future, plain and simple. Eric Schmidt is a dou
They're Both Wrong (Score:1)
Post this above your computer (Score:3)
No way.. (Score:1)
Eric Schmidt is âexactly wrongâ(TM) (Score:1)
Asking the opinion of someone who thinks AI can be compared with a simple mechanism like a telephone is a waste of time. Having a CEO title, even of a company like Google, doesnâ(TM)t convey expert knowledge of abstruse technical concepts.
Elon anticipates the worst because humanity has without exception shown that it can and will find the absolute worst things that can be done with any technology. Expecting that to change for AI is Pollyanna-thinking.