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.'"
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
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/
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.
It will also grapple, Dr. Horvitz said, with socioeconomic, legal and ethical issues, as well as probable changes in human-computer relationships. How would it be, for example, to relate to a machine that is as intelligent as your spouse?
I don't know... let me see a photo of this machine...
If they are smarter then use, they know how stupid war is.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What gave you the idea that they will call it war ?
When you exterminate the rodents in your house, do you call it war ?