I doubt Musk has ever actually built a neural network, or got close to coding one... because if he did, he would realize just how fragile and hard to generalize they are.
Stacking a ton of data together to build predictive models that can produce intelligent-like outputs, is a far, far cry from a robot gaining consciousness or a sense of agency.
If he stays consistent with what he says about AI, I think he might be successful in deterring people from using useful and reasonable AI for a while. I wish he would take the dangers of new features like Autopilot in a production car as seriously though.
What exactly did he say that would imply that? As far as I know (and I did watch all the recent interviews), his approach boils down to:
- more open access to AI is less dangerous than it being developed in secret by corporations or governments; hence OpenAI
- suggesting that regulators start paying attention (and explicitly advising them not to start regulating outright; just to form an agency that would "gain insight" into the field)
> Stacking a ton of data together to build predictive models that can produce intelligent-like outputs, is a far, far cry from a robot gaining consciousness or a sense of agency.
That's, I think, you putting words into his mouth. I don't recall Musk ever talking much about AI consciousness or agency.
The way I understand it, Elon sides with the Yudkowsky/Bostrom reasoning of intelligence being an ability to perform extremely strong, cross-domain optimization. Which is orthogonal to a) consciousness as we know it, and b) ethical values as we know it - and that is precisely why it's considered a threat.
Give it something completely strange, foreign and unknown, and it will acts orders of magnitude more irrational than the dumbest human.
So while impressive, it's an example again of specialized AI. Real life is not at all like this, nor is what Google achieved clear that it can be a roadmap to anything like General AI.
At the very least it could help regulate some very real dangers, such as the misuse of highly effective specialized neural networks. (widespread surveillance, political manipulation, etc.)
I'd highly recommend Bostrom's book Super Intelligence if you have the time and inclination to read a book that makes this argument more clearly.
* Technology will keep advancing.
* There is nothing magical about the brain.
Just because technology has been rapidly advancing recently doesn't mean it will continue to do so indefinitely. It's possible that innovation will follow an S-curve and eventually level out due to hitting natural limits. (I don't necessarily think that will happen, but we have to acknowledge it as a possibility.)
Technology: I never said anything about the speed of growth. A minimal advancement would still be an improvement.
This makes it only a question of time.
Have you ever thought to consider that we are unable to understand our own brains due to being constrained exactly because of it?!
Advancements in intelligence and technology will push us towards a thorougher scientific understanding of the brain and the mechanics of intelligence itself.
There is no reason to believe that the brain so complex as to be impossible to understand. Not to mention that we may not need to have a completed neuroscience in order to develop some true intelligence (no matter how primitive) that can improve itself.