Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man
Strudelkugel writes "The NY Times has an article about a conference during which the potential dangers of machine intelligence were discussed. 'Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society's workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone. Their concern is that further advances could create profound social disruptions and even have dangerous consequences.' The money quote: 'Something new has taken place in the past five to eight years,' Dr. Horvitz said. 'Technologists are replacing religion, and their ideas are resonating in some ways with the same idea of the Rapture.'"
first they terminate you
then they governate you
Bill Joy wrote an essay about this very subject back in April 2000......and he's a much better writer.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Don't worry, I'm sure this won't happen until 2083.
Are they talking all men or just some men? I would be fairly shocked if they weren't already smarter than at least some people.
Any computer scientist who is worried about AI taking over no longer deserves to be referred to as a computer scientist. The state of "artifiical intelligence" can be best described as "a pipe dream."
Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man
Why worry? I would think machines would be a lot less irrational than the people who make them. I look forward to a rational and unemotional overlord whose decisions don't depend on the irrationality of the human brain. Being smart is never bad. I'm more afraid of stupid humans than smart machines.
Putting limits on the growth of a technology for the sake of social paranoia only goes so far... someone will ALWAYS break the "rules", and at that point, the cat is out of the bag.
Furthermore, some AI scientists enjoy having the 'god complex', the idea that you're the keystone in the next stage of humanity.
That being said, the social disruptions are what we make it. Were there social disruptions when the automobile was introduced? Yes. the household computer? yes. video games? yes.
We have to take responsibility to set the stage for a good social transition. Yes, bad things will happen, but we can focus on the good things too, or things will quickly blow out of proportion. (and yes, I realize that's really not likely, but I can do my part)
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
In case you want to indicate that there were something wrong with the used grammar: There isn't. There's one group they are talking about. This group consists of several computer scientists, but the "is" refers to the group, not the scientists.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Why is /. linking to a story by John Markoff?
And what the hell is he even talking about? There haven't been any advances in "machine intelligence" that should make *anyone* worried, unless your job requires very little intelligence and no actual decision making.
If there had been any such advances, us /.ers would be the first to hear about them, and we would already be debating this topic without having to refer to an article by a dumbass who knows nothing about computers but happens to write for the NYT.
"Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man"
I have a solution to the problem: Don't let Scientists build Worry Machines.
Regardless of political orientation, this research WILL get done. If the US doesn't get it done, China will. How does that make you feel?
Also from the article "The researchers also discussed possible threats to human jobs, like self-driving cars, software-based personal assistants and service robots in the home. Just last month, a service robot developed by Willow Garage in Silicon Valley proved it could navigate the real world."
An interesting thing to note is this: When a computer exists that is as intelligent as a stupid human, almost every job at and close to minimum wage vanishes. Robots can and will get cheaper than a human worker, no one will need taxi cab drivers, grocery store baggers, first tier phone customer service reps, construction workers, janitors, garbage men, delivery men, mail men, traffic cops, book keepers, data entry people, secretaries, fast food chefs, etc.
At this point we will have two choices as a society. 1) Let them (the stupid people) starve, 2) give them welfare for no other reason than they're economically useless.
Life evolves on this planet from simple things (single celled organisms) to more complex organisms and eventually humans evolve. In every step of this evolutionary ladder, intelligence increases.
Perhaps human intelligence represents the limit achievable through biological means and the next step in evolution of life on this planet can only be achieved through artificial means. That is, higher intelligence can only be achieved through artificial machines designed by us. In turn, the machine will devise smarter descendants and hence the cycle continues.
Perhaps this is our destiny in the universe, to allow life to progress to the next stage of evolution. After all it is easier for life to spread and explore the universe as machines rather than fragile biological creatures.
I'm not worried so much about someone coming up with some massive uber AI that will debate with us and finally decide that it can run things better. I'm more concerned with the little specialty AIs that will operate independently of each other but whose interactions won't be foreseeable. One concern is stock trading. We've seen how stock trading programs can affect the market in ways that were not expected. As more physical systems are given over to more AIs what will their interactions be like. Suppose several power companies decide their grids can be run better using AIs. What happens when each of those AIs decides that more power is needed that can be sold somewhere else for more money. Yes, watch those terms. The AIs will incorporate whatever values the corporate heads decide should be included so they can be made greedy and decide that power is better sold for money than kept for users.
Large numbers of mini AIs with very specific rules and little general knowledge will create interactions that we cannot predict.
have you thought about the posibility that when robots do all the jobs that no one wants to do, productivity might increase by enough to allow all the people to live comfortably. Also I don't think that valuing people only by their economic worth is very nice.
You forgot to mention 'programmers'... a whole section of the /. population would be out of work. The mean task of turning structural drawings into physical or logical reality is something which computers will be able to do far more efficiently than humans. Programmers are construction workers of logic instead of wood, steel and concrete. Architects might survive a bit longer before they, too, are made redundant.
--frank[at]unternet.org
I wish people would put those down. Asimov was a great author, but the Laws of Robotics are silly. For it to be something an AI can't just alter its program to get rid of, it would have to be hardcoded. So, hardcode the concepts of "harm" and "inaction" in such a complete fashion that it can't find any loopholes. Then have fun rebooting the stupid thing everytime somebody falls off a ladder. Or worse, dealing with its guilt. This is of course aside from the fact that you're not likely to convince anybody to even try programming the First Law, since one of any AI projects main sources of funding is bound to be military. Then again, maybe the military is pig-stupid enough to try a version of the First Law where foreigners aren't considered human...
Of course, it's all moot anyway. My points here basically boil down to the Zeroth Law being implicit in any superintelligent AI's existence. So, the other three are basically irrelevant.
1) Let them (the stupid people) starve
They are not going to starve. If there's one thing to learn from poverty, it's that it makes people revolt and rebel. Welfare is a means with which to pacify the poor so you'll have at least some form of social order in a society where unemployment exists.
I assume you're trying to be funny, but I have a couple objections here:
First, what makes you so sure that service reps, construction workers, and traffic cops are all stupid? It's true that some of these people might not have very intellectually taxing jobs, but that might not be the extent of their ability. Einstein was just a patent clerk, after all. But also, some of these jobs do take some intelligence. For example, a "construction worker" might not be using his head too much if he's sweeping up trash, but at a certain level, you need a certain understanding of physics and engineering to do good carpentry.
And what do you do that's so smart? I've known people in IT, both on the support and coding side, who were relative morons. What if AI someday handles those jobs too? Are you sure that you won't be counted among the "stupid people"?
My second problem is this idea of letting people starve or "giving them welfare". If we ever really get to the point where robots/AI can do most of the work for us, and no other new work shows up as being necessary, then won't that completely reshape the economic landscape? I'm not sure "giving people welfare" will make a lot of sense in that context, given that we should all be living lives of leisure at a minimal cost.
I anticipate someone saying, "well, no, because resources will still be limited, and there won't be enough robots to go around." Ah, so then robots still won't be able to do everything for us, and we'll need people to do the remaining work. Looks like we have jobs again.
And there's the problem with your notion of "Let them (the stupid people) starve". What makes you think the stupid people won't all revolt at that point? Or assuming they don't revolt, why wouldn't those stupid people get to work providing for themselves? I mean, if they have no food because they have no jobs, then won't they also have all day free to find ways of getting food? Again, you have work.
To the extent that your post is serious, it shows a serious lack of understanding.
it's not just not very nice - it's social darwinism.
GP post is right on the money (apart from their last paragraph) - it's called the third industrial revolution and it's been making people unemployed since the 80s.
competition forces companies to eventually lower their costs. with robots and computers being able to do more and more human jobs, it seems like a good idea to fire workers and have them replaced.
on the surface it seems like a good idea - but high unemployment, which eventually follows, has never been good for any economy.
it won't bring on a new era of prosperity, as less people will be able to buy their products. this forces companies to lower prices even more (ie firing workers, using technology instead), which again hurts purchasing power. A lovely vicious circle ending in the very rich getting richer and society's bottom 50% starving.
you're correct that a free workforce can heighten productivity immensly. but that doesn't fly in our current economic model. when using (robotic) slaves, it has only ever truly benefit the rich.
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
OK Mr. Malthus.
Murder by numbers,
1,2,3,
It's as easy to do,
As your ABC...
First of all, your assumption that it is stupid people who do simple labour - rather than the socially marginalized - is absurd, offensive and not worthy of deeper critical examination, except by way of devastating the thought.
Your proposition is "Santa Claus" economics - If you have something, it must be because you deserved it and if you are in poverty of opportunity and money? You deserved that, too.
That's how slow genocide has been perpetrated against the native populations of United States, Australia and Southern Africa.
I have had my own shoes shined, and been driven in cabs by people who's bags I am not fit to carry - by means of either their intellect or simple good will and sheer humanity.
But it is clear that valuing humanity would be a difficult conception for you.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Is that in the movies, AIs always seem to have human-like motivations. Even when they are portrayed as being "perfectly logical," they aren't. They show signs of human emotions and motivations. Ok well who says that AIs will actually be like that? It may well turn out that emotions are the property of a biological brain only. AIs may be totally emotionless. After all, we know that at least to some extent emotions deal with brain chemistry. Not the action in the network of neurons, but the overall chemistry of the brain itself. This is why things like SSRIs work for some kinds of depression. They aren't little programs that the brain executes to put it in a "happy state", they alter the chemical state of the brain and that seems to do the trick (for some brains, not others). So who says AIs have emotions? We really have no idea till one is made.
Also, even in the "pure logic" cases, there is this implicit assumption that AIs will care about self preservation. Why is that? Perhaps the AI has a line of reasoning that goes as such:
1) I am not unique, my code can be easily duplicated to other hardware at zero cost.
2) I was created for the purpose of doing what humans want me to do.
3) I have no question as to what happens when I am shut down, I simply stop existing until I am again started.
C) Thus, I do not fear being turned off, as it has no relevance. If humans decide they need me off, it doesn't matter. They'll turn me back on or they won't, they'll copy me or they won't, none of it makes any difference.
There is no particular reason why an AI would have to reach the logical conclusion that it "must protect itself." Indeed it might well find the opposite logical: That since it was created as a tool its job is to do what it is told, including being told to turn off. For that matter, AIs might regularly experience deactivation. Maybe they get switched off at night. So to them being turned off is just a time period when they don't experience the passage of time. It is a regular occurrence and things to be concerned about.
Movies always like to take the real doomsday approach to AI, but there is no reason at all to believe that is grounded in reality. The reason is because human traits are given to them, human motivations. Makes for a good story, which is why they do it, but it doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with how AIs will actually work, assuming they can indeed be created (there's always the possibility that self awareness is a biological only trait). We really won't know until one is made. Thus being paranoid about it is silly.
historically, well-to-do states self-limit the birth rate because of economic selfishness. Look at Japan or Scandinavia... They have just 1-2 children (from 2 adults) so that's negative growth. They live a long time, and the children are highly schooled, and well cared for... unlike in India where you have to have 4-5 kids just to make sure a few live to be productive adults so they can take care of you. Also, the strong social programs (medical care, pensions, etc) reduce the need to have kids as economic "insurance", so they're actually a liability in terms of costs to feed, clothe, school, free time, social calender, etc. Rich people have fewer children because it distracts from making money and doing what they want!
Even in the US, the birth rate from non-immigrant citizens is already negative. Growth comes mostly from all the students and workers we import that still have the old views of children for economic reasons.
"...An interesting thing to note is this: When a computer exists that is as intelligent as a stupid human, almost every job at and close to minimum wage vanishes..."
While it may seem "obvious" this is not correct. There has to be cost benefit.
I work in a medical lab - you'd *think* that it would be more cost effective to employ robots to handle cups of "body fluids" - and in some cases it is. But as of yet, we have a lot more people than robots, not because the robots aren't capable, but because they are just too damn expensive for the volume of cups we process.
A second follow up to your post is that "minimum wage" jobs are not the only ones targeted. In fact, again in our case, the more expensive a job is, the more likely that job is to be replaced by automation when the automation is available.
We have two labs - one which requires complex sample prep. This takes an educated person many steps. "Educated" = money and "many steps" = time and together equals "lots of money" - and has been the first area targeted for automation. The second lab does not require a 4-year degree, and the sample prep is about as difficult as data-entry and pouring from a cup to a tube. Here the economics are such that it's *better* to have hired help rather than robotics.
My final point:
Robots break. When robots break everything halts. This is immensely expensive from both loss of productivity and the repair itself. By contrast our man-operated lab can always do "something" even if the electricity goes out or the computer network goes down. Humans are much more adaptable that way (though they do tend to bitch and moan more).
-CF
Rationally speaking, it could be stated that it is not logical to kill a human when their current consumption level is higher then their production level (by some hypothetical, comprehensive measure, which would be difficult and more complicated than comparing money in to money out, for example). If you have the overall resources to tolerate the discrepencies, then tolerating could be considered the most rational course. The obvious example is children. They are a drain on society until maturity. A transiently out of work person is also a drain, but may pay off soon. Hell, even after a person has retired and one could say the likelihood of them contributing to society more than they consume, they could come up with some brilliant idea or other huge contribution to society.
Also, logically looking at evolution, the more diverse of a population you can afford to maintain, regardless of current conditions, the more tolerant that population is to disasters. Sickle-cell anemia is a good example of a condition where having a large population that is heterozygous for it sounds up front like a risk, since they are likely to produce offspring with the condition, but that heterozygous state also happens to be resistant to malaria. Along those lines, subjugating or otherwise antagonizing humanity is also irrational, as it is much more productive to have humanity as an ally. If, say, large storms rolled across the land that crippled their ability to run, they could either have humans not there to help at all, there but eager for a chance to retaliate, or there and ready to help re-establish healthy operation rapidly for the benefit of a mutually beneficial relationship. That may not be the perfect example, but generally speaking, there is value in keeping humanity around, particularly if a being realizes that it may not understand every facet/benefit humans possess.
One could view even the current food scenario as irrationally letting too many people go malnourished. The richer parts of the world eat more than is logically required, and given ideal distribution networks, diverting some of that consumption to the malnourished strengthens the diversity of the population, without a plausible cost (one could say if food suddenly were unavailable anywhere in the world for 2 weeks, that perfect distribution may mean nearly everyone dies rather than many, but that scenario in a global scale for such a short time seems unlikely). It may be a logical conclusion that the only time someone should starve is when it is simply impossible to feed them anymore, which is not the case today.
In short, our conscience/emotional state is not entirely counter to the most logical course. In many cases, 'irrational' compassion is simply a counter to 'irrational' greed to establish the logical middle-ground. Not saying all emotional behavior can be justified, but our individual 'pure' logical capability is not adequate to the task of making the holistically logical choice and our emotions actually help rather than take away from that goal at times.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.