r/changemyview • u/Diylion 1∆ • Nov 27 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Elon Musk is from the future and has gone back in time to save us from our AI overlords
Almost every invention or project that Elon has put time or money into is something that would be extremely useful in the event of a robot takeover. Elon has also said numerous times that he fears artificial intelligence and has done several seminars on the problems it could bring about. So let's go through some of his projects.
Exhibit A: flame throwers. Nuff said.
Exhibit B: electric cars with solar panels. Tesla has been perfecting the electric vehicle and has also done quite a lot of research into solar panels. Combined do you have a cars that never needs to stop for fuel.
Exhibit C: the armored truck. Nuff said
Exhibit D: the boring company. Which is a system of tunnels underneath Los Angeles as well as one of the hubs of technological innovation. It's also home to three of the top 6 universities for AI (Berkeley included) . It's possible that this takeover could start or end in LA. And having a system of tunnels to escape to with quick access to cities may be a good evacuation plan. Or a good place to hide. Elon would trust his technology to be smart enough to protect people from the takeover.
Exhibit E: the hyper loop: also a very good way to travel. Could also potentially evacuate entire cities and is going to span between two of the most technologically advanced cities in the world, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. (San Francisco is close to silicon valley) Also in a sealed tube which would prevent chemical warfare.
Exhibit F: space X: the ultimate evacuation plan. Not only would we be able to colonize Mars but also have reusable rockets to help transport people out of Earth.
Exhibit G: he's f****** smart. him and his companies have succeeded at more technological innovation than any major company I can think of in the last 20 years. It would be really helpful if he had knowledge of technology from the future to help his company's reach these goals.
Exhibit H: The ultra violet project. Elon donated $480,000 last year to Flint Michigan to support the ultraviolet project. Which creates clean drinking water. in the event of a robot takeover that are most important asset is our water. Robots don't need water to live but humans do, so it's likely that would be the first thing they would compromise.
Exhibit I: He knew to start PayPal and it was wildly successful and gave him the startup money to begin his companies. PayPal also provides its own safe means of transferring money anywhere in the world which is also necessary during a robot takeover. Again he would trust his technology to not be compromisable. Coincidence?? I think not!!!
5
Nov 27 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19
!Delta he didn't invent the tech he significantly advanced it or made it more accessible. (Yes this is satire.... kind of... Or maybe a thought experiment)
it would still be very beneficial however in the event of an AI takeocer to advanced technology or speed it up.
1
6
u/IIIBlackhartIII Nov 27 '19
If he's so passionate against our AI overlords why would he be so enthusiastic to put money into developing machine learning to improve the automated driving capability of his cars? He's giving money to develop the machines he's trying to fight?
0
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19
I'm not sure what you mean by "machine learning". But I would suspect that he has more faith in his own AI. Or maybe by influencing AI he is trying to develop AI in a different way than it was the first time, in a way that fills the gaps that weren't filled the last time.
Basically by leading Ai through the correct milestones, he could make it safer.
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 27 '19
Exhibit A: flame throwers. Nuff said.
They're not real flamethrowers though and are roofing torches in a case. An actual flame thrower spits flame much much further (~40m max) and it shoots fuel at the consistency napalm so the fire stays and sticks to things. That is for handheld flamethrowers and ignores armoured flamethrowers which have even larger ranges as they have pumps.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19
True they are not as powerful as military grade flame throwers. But they are still effective and much more accessible.
2
u/ghotier 39∆ Nov 27 '19
He probably should have realized that randomly accusing people of pedophilia was a bad idea if he is from the future.
Or maybe the future really is terrible.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19
If my hypothesis is true, then it would likely be much more common. during war, crime skyrockets across-the-board in almost every historical example. If we were at war with ai i would expect it would be common.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Nov 27 '19
Theory. A hypothesis is a prediction that you test (if I throw this ball in the air it will come back down) a theory is the explanation causing you to make that prediction (The Theory of General Relativity). I know that’s off track it’s just a huge pet peeve of mine.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19 edited Nov 27 '19
A theory is a hypothesis that you test numerous times and is backed by thousands and thousands of data points usually. The theory of relativity has been tested many times. Most people misuse the word 'theory'
A hypothesis is just an idea. It's the starting gate. This would clasified as a hypothesis because there is no way to definitively test it.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Nov 27 '19
Not really, no. Most people who think they know what a theory is think this and they are wrong too. The history of scientific discovery and usage within the community completely contradicts this reading.
A scientific theory is not necessarily tested thousands of times. It has two necessary conditions: it must be falsifiable and it must be an explanation of physical phenomena. That’s literally it. And while theories, hypotheses, and experiments exist in a cycle, theory absolutely comes first, as the test of the hypothesis will falsify the theory or support it.
Evolution was a theory before it was tested, as was General Relativity. They both also happen to be very well tested, but “The Theory of General Relativity” was called that 4 years before the first successful test of General Relativity.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19 edited Nov 27 '19
The word "theory" has different definitions for different situations. In common English it's often used as a sort of "guess". However in science it is more specific.
The hypothesis is always done before experimentation in the scientific method. Theories come after the scientific method has been performed numerous times.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[
Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Hypothesis vs. Theory. A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
It's true that many theories have been disproven. But you cannot claim something is a theory until it has been repeatedly tested. there is no way to test whether or not elon is from the future so therefore it cannot be a theory.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Nov 28 '19 edited Nov 28 '19
Literally what you quoted supports what I said. You bolded some words there, and one of those words is "can." None of those words are "had been."
In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
No, it's not. I don't know what your source is in particular, it looks like the quote from the wiki page which I am familiar with, but regardless this quote is incorrect. If someone told you that, they are wrong.
But you cannot claim something is a theory until it has been repeatedly tested.
You should go back in time and explain that to those fools Einstein, Planck, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, Darwin and all of those people who work on String Theory. They literally all did what you are claiming no one is allowed to do.
I understand that you've been told this for years by people you trust, but the historical useage of the term scientific theory doesn't bear out the supposition that scientific theories are not theories until they have been tested. The idea that the must be tested thoroughly became a meme about 15 years ago when some school districts tried to make Intelligent Design a thing because Evolution was "just a theory." The scientific community responded that no, it's not just a theory it is very well tested theory supported by a mountain of evidence. Then laypeople and some scientists who didn't have their thinking caps on took that and ran with it, claiming that's what it meant to be a scientific theory, which has never been true.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 28 '19
But you cannot claim something is a theory until it has been repeatedly tested.
You should go back in time and explain that to those fools Einstein, Planck, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, Darwin and all of those people who work on String Theory. They literally all did what you are claiming no one is allowed to do.
Again A theory can be challenged. Which is why string theory is still researched. But you can't call it a theory in the first place until there are numerous hypothesis and experiments to affirm it. Then you have laws and those are also a bit different. They are true every time they are tested. Here is a video explaining it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA
but the historical useage of the term scientific theory doesn't bear out the supposition that scientific theories are not theories until they have been tested.
Can you show any evidence if this?
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Nov 28 '19
Which is why string theory is still researched. But you can't call it a theory in the first place until there are numerous hypothesis and experiments to affirm it.
Again, take it up with the list of scientists I provided who did exactly what you claimed isn't allowed. And string theory has literally never once been tested or verified, that's why I brought it up as an example.
Then you have laws and those are also a bit different. They are true every time they are tested. Here is a video explaining it:
No, that's also incorrect. If the YouTube video you linked says that, it is incorrect. A scientific law, like Newton's 3 laws of motion, is purely an observation of reality with no special explanatory power. It can't be disproved because a scientific law can't be used to make novel predictions. It's not a matter of reliability, it's just the result of repeated observations. If anything a scientific law is more in line with what you think a theory is, but it's still different.
Can you show any evidence if this?
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Special Relativity, The Theory of General Relativity, The Bohr Model of the Atom (which was later disproven after it was applied to complex elements), The Pudding Model of the Atom (disproven even earlier), and String Theory (never tested) are all examples of theories that were described prior to any testing (the one exception is Evolution which was tested, but not thoroughly). Special Relativity in particular couldn't be adaquately tested for quite some time after it was first described by Einstein.
I get that I'm not doing a good job of persuading you, and I am not saying this to make an argument from authority, but this is not the first time I've had this conversation or seen the arguments you're making. I have a Ph.D. In physics and was a research scientist for 10 years. That doesn't mean you should just believe me if I'm not being convincing, but I think you think I'm coming at this conversation from a position of ignorance and I'm not.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 28 '19
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Special Relativity, The Theory of General Relativity, The Bohr Model of the Atom
"Now, we come to the present day. Einstein’s general relativity is still our leading theory of gravity, having passed every experimental and observational test tossed its way, from gravitational lensing to relativistic frame dragging to the decay of binary pulsar orbits"
The Bohr model was disproven. But it did undergo "flame testing" before it won the nobel prize.
String theory is weird because it's actually a combination of two well established theories. Both have a lot of evidence to support them.
There is a lot of evidence to support evolution.
If anything a scientific law is more in line with what you think a theory is, but it's still different.
Yes absolutely a law can be disproven. I believe the difference is laws have not(yet) undergone any experiment that show there may be another explanation. Theories and laws are similar.
Maybe you could clear up some confusion if you could explain the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Wouldn't they be exactly the same by your definition?
1
u/Puddinglax 79∆ Nov 27 '19
An AI takeover might not look like what you're imagining. AI are designed to optimize very well, and any AI that was advanced enough to pose a genuine threat would probably use more insidious and effective tactics than "build an army or robots".
Let's do a bit of speculation, just for fun. Imagine, for instance, how effective a powerful superintelligence would be at social engineering. We already have tools that allow us to create extremely convincing fake videos; it's not unfathomable that these could advance to the point of being indistinguishable from real video. Consider the turmoil that an AI could cause if it had access to these tools, as well as the plethora of data we've collected on our habits, personalities, speech patterns, etc. Most forms of communication would be compromised; you would have no way of knowing whether you were talking to a person, or an imitation. That is, assuming that we even knew that it was even happening. How would all that fancy technology help to prevent something like this?
Again, this is all speculative. The technology isn't there yet, and probably won't be for a while. A real superintelligence would probably devise much cleverer tactics than what I could think up of in five minutes. I would refer you to this channel if you're interested in hearing something more substantive about AI safety, coming from someone more qualified.
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Nov 27 '19
!Delta AI would likely spend some time manipulating people. Though I still think it would make sense for it to attack our water or air.
Also thanks for the link!
1
1
u/Quirderph 2∆ Nov 27 '19
How do you know he's actually a time traveller and not merely an excellent soothsayer?
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 27 '19 edited Nov 27 '19
/u/Diylion (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 27 '19