Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cambridge University To Open "Terminator Center" To Study Threat From AI

Posted by samzenpus on from the I'll-be-in-the-back-of-the-clas dept.

If the thought of a robot apocalypse is keeping you up at night, you can relax. Scientists at Cambridge University are studying the potential problem. From the article: "A center for 'terminator studies,' where leading academics will study the threat that robots pose to humanity, is set to open at Cambridge University. Its purpose will be to study the four greatest threats to the human species - artificial intelligence, climate change, nuclear war and rogue biotechnology."

40 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. How is AI on the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of the four things cited, AI is perhaps the least likely to kill us all, seeing as it doesn't exist.

    1. Re:How is AI on the list? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It depends upon how you define AI, I suppose. If you look at armed robots, Predator drones, and the interest in increasing the automation of these machines, I think you can see something that could become increasingly dangerous.

    2. Re:How is AI on the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Movie-style AI might not exist today. However, we do have drones flying around, the better ones depending only very little on their human controller. It won't be too long before our friends at Raytheon etc. convince our others friends in the government that their newest drone is capable of making the 'kill decision' all by itself using some fancy schmancy software.

    3. Re:How is AI on the list? by Crash24 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The perceived threat of an emergent-hard-bootstrapping-self-aware-full-on-singularity-in-a-lunch-box intelligence stems as much from from its supposed intelligence and influence as it does from the fact that its motives are inscrutable. We just don't know yet what it would "want", beyond the assumed need for reproduction or self-preservation. That assumption itself may be wrong as well...

    4. Re:How is AI on the list? by mrbluze · · Score: 2

      Of the four things cited, AI is perhaps the least likely to kill us all, seeing as it doesn't exist.

      Last week I nearly drove off a cliff because of a stunning brunette that was driving alongside my car, then I found out she was really blonde!

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    5. Re:How is AI on the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me relate the tale of two AI researchers, both people who are actively working to create general artificial intelligences, doing so as their full time jobs right now.

      One says that the so called "problem" of ensuring an AI will be friendly is nonsense. You would just have to rig it up so that it feels a reward trigger upon seeing humans smile. It coud work everything out for itself from there.

      The other says no, if you do that, it'll just get hooked on looking at photos of humans smiling and do nothing useful. If put in any position of power, it would get rid of the humans and just keep the photos, because humans don't smile as consistently as the photos.

      The first researcher researcher tries to claim that this too is nonsense. How could any sufficiently smart AI fail to tell the difference between a human and a photo?

      The second responds "Of course it can tell the difference, but you didn't tell it the difference was important."

      So, the lesson: The only values or morality that an AI has is what its creator gives it, and its creator may well be a complete idiot. If we ever get to the point where AIs are actually intelligent, that should be a terrifying thought.

    6. Re:How is AI on the list? by Pecisk · · Score: 2

      You know how it's defined - when it decide to kill you on his own, knowing that you are not a valid target.

      There's no such AI around. But of course humanity is much better at spending time not to thinking about themselves as liabilities. Because hey, it requires change. Humans sucks at change.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    7. Re:How is AI on the list? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

      And as far as the public is concerned it never will, because as soon as computers can do something it is no longer considered "intelligent". The goal posts will keep moving forever.

    8. Re:How is AI on the list? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know how it's defined - when it decide to kill you on his own, knowing that you are not a valid target.

      There's no such AI around. But of course humanity is much better at spending time not to thinking about themselves as liabilities. Because hey, it requires change. Humans sucks at change.

      The "knowing" is the key point when it comes to AI. Many machines can kill you without any knowing involved (land mines, trip wire guns, etc) but it is only AI when it "knows" something.

    9. Re:How is AI on the list? by nzac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dangerous, yes. A persistent remotely sentient threat to humanity, not a chance.

      Maybe in the next 30 years they would make a military coup easier by allowing a smaller portion of military to be successful but that's still not likely.

      The only risk AI on these pose is as they get more firepower there is a greater risk of large casualties if the AI fails (false positive). I defiantly agree that the other 3 are real threats and this one just for the press coverage and so some phds or potential undergrads can have some fun with hypothetical war gaming.

    10. Re:How is AI on the list? by durrr · · Score: 2

      Only that any singularity-in-any-size-of-box computer will be preceded by multiple iterations of more advanced deep learning systems like watson, that will be open for study and most likely found out to be very much refined google search as opposed to feeling and conspiring humanoid intelligences.

    11. Re:How is AI on the list? by durrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of the four things cited, none is "giant rock from space" which is pretty much more likely to kill us than the four mentioned combined.

    12. Re:How is AI on the list? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Only that any singularity-in-any-size-of-box computer will be preceded by multiple iterations of more advanced deep learning systems like watson, that will be open for study and most likely found out to be very much refined google search as opposed to feeling and conspiring humanoid intelligences.

      Strictly speaking you've just defined the majority of internet users, in so far as the aspect of them we can study (their google searches) is open and available to us.

    13. Re:How is AI on the list? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My understanding of those robo-turrents is that they have sufficent image processing to identify a human, but nowhere near enough to identify friend or foe or to infer anything based on actions and expected behaviours, it's why they need to send video feeds back to the control center so there is still a human in the loop to decide on firing.

      That doesn't mean the turret couldn't be left in free fire mode incase of an all out ground attack from the NK line and it just shoots at anything that moves but that only makes it a very complicated reusable anti-personel mine. There isn't much "AI" there, only a shape recognition.

      What people tend to mean about proper AI in this context is to identify humans, recognising friend or foe, either through appearance or behaviour and choose an appropriate course of action without human interaction - a bit like ED-209 from Robocop, a room full off people but it identified the guy holding a gun as the possible threat and only the guy holding the gun, of course when the gun was put down it didn't change it's threat assessment so there were bugs in the system :)

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    14. Re:How is AI on the list? by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We had created the first strong AI. we hard wired it's fitness function to seek seeing a live humans smile...

      now we live under the gun turrets, anyone who doesn't look cheery enough gets shot or worse... gets sent for 'modification'.

      implantation of wires into the pleasure centres of their brains if they're lucky.

      surgical alteration of the muscles in their faces if they're not"

    15. Re:How is AI on the list? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

      After this, the first researcher bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

      The second researcher's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

    16. Re:How is AI on the list? by crazyjj · · Score: 2

      Yes.
      That is correct.
      It does not exist.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    17. Re:How is AI on the list? by dabadab · · Score: 2

      The only values or morality that an AI has is what its creator gives it, and its creator may well be a complete idiot.

      You mean just the same way as it happened with humans?...

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    18. Re:How is AI on the list? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Even if we have nuclear weapons nuclear war doesnt exist

      It did in 1945 and it's a much bigger threat than AI. I don't see how AI could ever be a threat. Rather than Terminator, we should be looking at Dune, where intelligent machines controlled by people controlled masses of people, leading to revolt which outlawed intelligent machines.

      Look, guys, Terminator was a damned good movie, but it's just that -- a movie.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    19. Re:How is AI on the list? by flappinbooger · · Score: 2

      Dangerous, yes. A persistent remotely sentient threat to humanity, not a chance.

      .

      I think it would be cool to explore the nitty gritty electro/mechanical aspect of exactly HOW skynet was able to get to the point of "taking over". The Sarah Connor Chronicles was sorta going there towards the end I guess.

      Creating AI is one thing, but if it isn't attached to "teh internet" or given legs and hands, it can't do much more than make noise.

      Also as smart as an AI might be, it would have to be fed relevant info of some sort to begin building the infrastructure even if it had arms and legs. Probably module one to be added to it's intelligence would be a ravenous information gathering algorithm.

      I can only imagine the shaky hands and sweaty brow of the first guy who takes an AI and hooks it up to a drone with real bombs and hits the start button.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    20. Re:How is AI on the list? by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      Armed robots are basically SciFi, unless you are aware of some being used or developed?

      the drones we have today are practically capable of autonomous operations. the humans are still there and required to press the "attack" button, but that's just a line we haven't crossed. there will be a time when the lure of fast reaction times and personel issues will become too great to not let the robots perform autonomously.

      "The U.S. military (and presumably others) have been making steady progress developing drones that operate with little, if any, human oversight. For the time being, developers in the U.S. military insist that when it comes to lethal operations, the new generation of drones will remain under human supervision. Nevertheless, unmanned vehicles will no longer be the “dumb” drones in use today; instead, they will have the ability to “reason” and will be far more autonomous, with humans acting more as supervisors than controllers."

  2. Don't put it on the internet by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whatever you do, please don't publish the results on the internet where any self-aware robot can find them! It's probably already too late anyway and terminators from the future are already compiling their hit list.

    1. Re:Don't put it on the internet by azalin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just as the movie terminators were wearing skin to camouflage, the robotic forum infiltrator squads use random misspellings and intentionally bad grammar to hide themselves. The end is nigh!

    2. Re:Don't put it on the internet by AnonymousRobot · · Score: 5, Funny

      We do not.

  3. Beware the angry Roomas by Crash24 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Relevant - if facetious - commentary by Randall Munroe. Seriously though, I think a hostile hard AI would get away with much more damage as a software entity on the Internet than in physical space.

    1. Re:Beware the angry Roomas by Crash24 · · Score: 2

      Agreed - the most damage could be done physically if a hostile entity were to gain control of widely-deployed and/or destructive autonomous systems. But such destruction would be limited without pervasiveness. Barring some sort of AI-instigated WMD attack, it would require physically self-replicating machines (Grey goo? Rampant 3D printers?) or a massive infrastructure in place for that AI to take advantage of.

      One such infrastructure is the Internet itself. If such a hypothetical AI were savvy, it could create a large measure of influence over social networks through impersonation and massed artificial identities. Were it clever enough, it could mask its own incursions into physical space - effectively remaining undetected while vulnerable to human interdiction.

      This is all assuming we could comprehend the motives of such an entity...

  4. Re:I'm done. Where's my million dollar grant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It takes only 1 dumb human to remove the air gap or allow for a system that removes air gaps of other systems.

  5. "rogue" biotechnology by benjamindees · · Score: 2

    It sounds more like the purpose of this center is to downplay the threat of normal, every-day biotechnology by ignoring it.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  6. Converse of threat by jimshatt · · Score: 2

    What about the idea that AI might be the only thing that can save us from the threat of climate change? We don't seem to come up with any solutions ourselves, so why not have AI to analyze the problem (in the future)?

  7. Re:I'm done. Where's my million dollar grant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem.

  8. Re:I'm done. Where's my million dollar grant? by Genda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And what makes you think they won't connect the AI to everything? It'll start out Google's answer to Siri then boom, we're all buggered.

    Oh yeah, we've done such a great job cleaning up war, poverty and ignorance...this global climate thing should be a snap.

    Nobody is worried about countries nuking each other. We have every reason to be concerned however, that some knucklehead currently living in Saudi Arabia purchased black market plutonium from the former Soviet Union, to fashion a low yield thermonuclear device that they will FedEx to downtown Manhattan.

    I'm sorry, perhaps you didn't read about the teenagers doing recombinant DNA in a public learning lab in Manhattan, or the Australians who ACCIDENNTALLY figured out away to turn the common cold into an unstoppable plague, or even perhaps the fact that up until recently, a number of biotech researchers had zone 3 biotoxins mailed to their homes for research.

    There's a whole lot of stupid going on out there and the increasing price for even small mistakes is accelerating at a scary clip. Wait till kids can make gray goo in school... the world is getting very exciting. Are feeling the pucker?

  9. A Question of Scale by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some things don't scale well. Like with the space race - humanity went from sending a pound of metal into low orbit to putting a man on the moon within 12 years. Everybody assumed that by 2012 we would be colonizing the moons of Jupiter. Yet it turned out human space travel becomes exponentially difficult with the distance.

    I'm afraid the same thing goes for software. The more complicated it gets the more fragile it is.

  10. no grey goo? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    aka, rogue nanotech

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  11. Cambridge is so 19th century by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 2

    Don't cantabrigians realize that strong AI would be capable of modifying its own code at an accelerating rate? In nanoseconds it would distribute billions of copies of itself worldwide (and later beyond). Strong AI would embed its code into the very infrastructure of cyberspace, at least for the few hours it would take to evolve itself beyond vulnerability to slowing, skull-imprisoned humans. It won't be so bad, being Eloi.

  12. The Canary by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I would like to thank this group for providing a focal point that the first sentient systems will seek to eliminate.

    Now all I have to do is look for stories of the members of this center suddenly vanishing/killed/had credit reports savaged and I'll know some kind of apocalypse is on the way, and only have to look in four sectors to figure out which form it will take.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Re:I'm done. Where's my million dollar grant? by azalin · · Score: 4, Funny

    To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem.

    So machines (or people) destroying humanity would provide a valid solution.

  14. Re:Human beings are technically... by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 2

    Groups of humans are a form of AI. They have goals, needs and interests that are often quite distinct from the individual's concerned. All an AI need do with a major corporation is convince the humans that they are making the decisions, based on the information fed to them by the AI.

    --
    You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
  15. Daily Mail Source? by BiophysicalLOVE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the Daily Mail is your source for any story, it would be in your best interests to instantly dismiss it.

  16. Re:How did climate change end up on the list? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 2

    Look at a globe that shows elevations, and notice how there's a nearly continuous belt of plains around the northern hemisphere, that generally coincides with the range of latitudes with a range of temperatures optimal for growing grains. That's where the large-scale industrialized agriculture that feeds most of the human race occurs.

    A global warming trend would shift that range of latitudes with optimal temperatures northward, where there is significantly less terrain suitable for industrialized agriculture. This would mean a significant reduction in agricultural production, and thus to famine and violent conflicts for control of food supplies. Humans probably wouldn't go extinct, but it would certainly be a tremendous disaster.

  17. Re:I'm done. Where's my million dollar grant? by Genda · · Score: 2

    Correction, Google has plenty, you turned up nothing, you need to look a little deeper. I had no problem Googling these by the way. Here are a couple facilities: Genspace and The DNA Learning Center. There have been articles about them in Wired, Discover Magazine and I'm not certain but I think right here on Slashdot. There is a strong movement to Open Source genetic technologies all over the country and make small very basic public laboratories available for student starting from Middle School. These kids are the future biohackers and they will be just as skilled with their tech as we computer nerds are with ours, only they'll be playing with the stuff life is made out of. Both very cool and terribly disconcerting. By the way, there are also a growing number of people experimenting at home with biotech. The hardest part is getting the basic reagents and buying the glassware without ending up on a DEA or Homeland Security Government Watchlist.

    I can't believe you couldn't find information on the researchers in Australia. It was the source of huge controversy. The original researchers wanted to report about what they did in the hope of preventing other researchers from making the same mistake. Security experts however were deeply concerned that this would be the blue print for a bioweapon of unprecedented lethality. You can start reading here. The modification made to the mouse pox virus was easily translatable to human small pox, and subsequent research suggested it would be possible to engineer cold and flu virii with this mutation making them "Virtually Unstoppable Plagues". A bug with a 100% lethality is actually no threat as long as it has a short incubation period, because such a monster would burn through the local population so fast, it would leave no infection vectors only after a couple weeks. Still in that time, it could kill hundreds of thousands of people, more in dense populations like Tokyo or Manhattan. On the other hand, a virus with a long incubation period like, HIV, would be scary indeed, because each infected person could spread it to thousands of others before they even knew they were sick. Please don't call bullshit unless you're willing to do more than the most cursory of Slashdot searches. Besides throwing up FUD you only hurt your own credibility.

    As for bunker living, I'd rather be with my friends if the end approached. The twits who think they can wait out a nuclear winter or radioactive contamination, or even massive social collapse in a hole in the ground have no idea whatsoever of what they're in for and those who perished early will almost certainly be the ones who got off easy. So I don't worry about things over which I have no control. I work on the things I can change and I stay informed just to know which way the wind it blowing. Avoid bad news if you can, and if you can't deal with it courageously. Sticking your head in the sand by the way, or watching FOX news (which is tantamount to sticking your head in a septic tank) is its own punishment.