Slashdot Mirror
The Sci-Fi Myth of Killer Machines
malachiorion writes: "Remember when, about a month ago, Stephen Hawking warned that artificial intelligence could destroy all humans? It wasn't because of some stunning breakthrough in AI or robotics research. It was because the Johnny Depp-starring Transcendence was coming out. Or, more to the point, it's because science fiction's first robots were evil, and even the most brilliant minds can't talk about modern robotics without drawing from SF creation myths. This article on the biggest sci-fi-inspired myths of robotics focuses on R.U.R, Skynet, and the ongoing impact of allowing make-believe villains to pollute our discussion of actual automated systems."
We already use robots (or drones if you will) to kill people. It doesn't take much AI to have a program target a group of people as enemies and eradicate them. Just look at the AI of current video games. This is something that is affecting humanity today and that we need to discuss openly now.
Really the man that invented the term robotics did not fall into the trap.
BTW the movie of I Robot in no way qualifies as a work of Asimov. It in now way reflects his books.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I tried, honestly, but it's all bullshit. Assumptions. Without caring for reality. We now have robots that can decide to kill. Do we really want those? See what happened when you had drones shoot missiles at people? A lot of weddings got bombed. That is what happens when you take emotion out by relinking b&w video to an 'operator ' that pulls the trigger. Now imagine to take emotion out completely, because that is the direction we are heading. Especially, but not alone, the US. And the all other nations will have to follow. And as of now these systems exist and are being used in the field, as tests. Robots that decide who gets shot. Great fucking idea. Not.
As much as I enjoy reading books about Utopia and Utopian systems, those can never mature because humans are not all good guys looking out for societies interests, but their own.
As for Science, NASA has brought about a great many scientific wonders for every day life. At the same time, it helped increase our ability to kill each other. Broadcast Media is used for much less than altruistic purposes every day, yet could be of enormous benefit to society. The Internet is an awesome tool, yet used for nefarious plotting and illegal purposes all the time.
Why would AI be any different than other systems or organizatoins that were originally envisioned as great benefits to society? The NSA and CIA are agencies of good motives originally, that have gone at least a bit haywire because humans have abused their power for personal gain. Nuclear weapons were supposed to end wars, at least that was the sales pitch.
If AI could be programmed for truly altruistic purposes it would be beneficial for finding the nefarious characters and rooting out corruption. Because of that exact reason, the people funding and granting money to developing AI are not going to allow that to happen.
Imagine what would happen, for example, if AI looked at wealth disparity and started transferring money from (lets say) JD Rockefeller to people with less means. While potentially a great benefit to the rest of society, do you believe that same person would fund programs that allowed that to happen? Good luck with that.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why does slashdot keep linking to this popsci website? These are basically blog posts that make very little sense. I've yet to read anything on there that's anything more than this dude ranting on some scientific topic he's not qualified to comment on.
There are robots RIGHT NOW killing people. They're drones. Yes, they're under human control. But so will future robots. Robots aren't going to decide to kill humanity. Humanity is going to use robots to kill humanity. Eventually we'll give up direct control and they'll target tanks on their own. Then small arms. Then people talking about Jihad. Then criminals? The death penalty shouldn't be decided by algorithm.
This guy argues that Stephen Hawkings is basically just making an oped because there was a movie about killer robots. Why should we listen to him? We're listing to him because he's STEPHEN HAWKINGS. He's one of the smartest people who's ever lived. He made his point after the movie because, being smart, he understood the popular movie would have peoples attention focused on the issue. Hawkings is qualified, smart and has my respect. He also has a point. Popsci? What a joke.
Don't forget that humans, no matter how organic, are machines. Insanely intricate electro-chemical machines, but nonetheless machines developed over billions of years by non-thinking nucleic acids as tools to facilitate their own replication and competition against alternate nucleic acid sequences.
That fact has not hindered humans from developing their own goals and motivations having nothing to do with our design purpose, and even occasionally acting against it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
... simulated cannibalistic robot killers in the 1980s on a Symbolics running ZetaLisp. I gave a couple conference talks about it, plus one at NC State (where I wrote the simulation) that I think even may have influenced Marshall Brain. I had created a simulation of self-replicating robots that reconstructed themselves to an ideal from spare parts in their simulated environment (something proposed first by von Neumann, but I may have been the first to make such a simulation). The idea was that a robot that was essentially half of an "ideal" robot would make its other half by adding parts to itself, then split in two by cutting some links, and then do it again. The very first one assembled its other half, cut the links to divide itself, and then proceeded (unexpectedly to me) to then start cutting apart its offspring for parts to do it again. I had to add a sense of "smell" so robots would set the smell of parts they used and then not try to take parts that smelled the same. I also mention that simulation here:
http://www.dougengelbart.org/c...
Decades later, I still got a bit freaked out when our chickens would sometimes eat their own eggs...
My point though is that completely unintentionally, these devices I designed to create ended up destroying things -- even their own offspring. It was a big lesson for me, and has informed my work and learning in various directions ever since. Things you build can act in totally unexpected ways. And since creation involves changing the universe, any change also involves to some extent destroying something that is already there.
James P. Hogan in his 1982 book "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" which I had read earlier should have been a warning. In it he makes clear how any AI could gain a survival instinct and then could perceive things like power fluctuations as threats -- even if there was not intent on the part of the original programmers for that to happen.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/boo...
Langdon Winner's book "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought" assigned as reading in college also should have been another warning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
It's been sad to watch the progression of real killer autonomous robots since the 1980s... Here is just one example, and the exciting, upbeat music in the video shows the political and social problem more than anything:
"Samsung robotic sentry (South Korea, live ammo)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just because we can do something does not mean we should...
I was impressed that this recent Indian Bollywood film about an AI-powered robot took such a nuanced view of the problems. A bit violent for me, but otherwise an excellent and thought provoking film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
"Enthiran is a 2010 Indian Tamil science fiction techno thriller, co-written and directed by Shankar.The film features Rajinikanth in dual roles, as a scientist and an andro humanoid robot, alongside Aishwarya Rai while Danny Denzongpa, Santhanam, Karunas, Kalabhavan Mani, Devadarshini, and Cochin Haneefa play supporting roles. The film's story revolves around the scientist's struggle to control his creation, the android robot whose software was upgraded to give it the ability to comprehend and generate human emotions. The plan backfires as the robot falls in love with the scientist's fiancee and is further manipulated to bring destruction to the world when it lands in the hands of a rival scientist."
But yes, the Beserker Series is another signpost in that direction -- perhaps countered a bit by the Bolo series by Keith Laumer? :-)
ht
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.