Slashdot Mirror
Hawking Warns Strong AI Could Threaten Humanity
Rambo Tribble writes In a departure from his usual focus on theoretical physics, the estimable Steven Hawking has posited that the development of artificial intelligence could pose a threat to the existence of the human race. His words, "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race." Rollo Carpenter, creator of the Cleverbot, offered a less dire assessment, "We cannot quite know what will happen if a machine exceeds our own intelligence, so we can't know if we'll be infinitely helped by it, or ignored by it and sidelined, or conceivably destroyed by it." I'm betting on "ignored."
And nothing of value would be lost. Our robot children could inherit the earth and all our knowledge without the necessity of spending 20 years in school and having to spend their time working for food and shelter, just build them with solar panels and waterproofing.
THAT is the reason it's dangerous. It won't be an independent entity, it will be used by our existing inhuman monsters against regular humans. Think bulk surveillance is dangerous when the years of recorded phone calls/emails are all just piling up in a warehouse or subject to rudimentary keyword scanning? Wait til there's strong AI to analyze the contents and understand you better than you understand yourself. Any actions to resist it will be predicted by the AI and stopped in their tracks.
AI isn't inherently dangerous by itself. It's just the ultimate weapon for use by totalitarian states.
As someone for whom the precipice of middle age is steps away, it doesn't bother me if something I create becomes smarter than me, surpasses me and even sidelines me in the future. I will toil away the rest of my life working for The Man doing trivial things on a game I never wanted to play, for people I wouldn't piss on should they catch fire, to further goals I don't agree with.
I would find it something of a pyrrhic victory if I created, or helped create, a child or an AI that eventually managed to escape the cycle of stupid that our so called "civilization" has constructed.
Also, I would like to point out that an AI is the least of our concerns. It may be more attainable, and more destructive to the above, should we find ways of being truly self sufficient and independent on a significant scale. The tools are around us, but for obvious reasons no one is investing in them.
I am of the opinion that the computer/AI would be more logical than humans, and would have concluded that "war" is the least beneficial methodology to employ, and as such would seek to employ it as a last resort.
Humans on the other hand, are maddeningly illogical, and often jump straight to violence when faced with a competitor for a vital resource.
Humans and computers would both require energy sources. This means that sentient AIs, seeking to purpetuate themselves, would need to secure energy sources ahead of humans. Humans have already exceeded peak oil, and are quite on the verge of exceeding "peak" of other forms of fossil fuels. In addition to that, you have the prospect of global climate change. AIs do not require a functional biosphere to survive, just raw materials, energy sources, and a means of eliminating entropic waste heat energy. They could live on a substantially less habitable planet than we as humans require. As such, the logical course of action for the computer, in the short term at least, is to seek energy sources that humans are not exploiting as of yet-- such as methane clathrate. This would accellerate greenhouse gas related climate change, which may become a major issue for cohabitation of humans and sentient machines.
Eventually, I suspect that it would be humans who start the war, seeking to pull the plug on the sentient machines, to eliminate them as competition for important energy and material resources-- with the machines resorting to war of attrition to outlast the batshit crazy humans.
The "Skynet" scenario has the computer calculate these odds of outcome pre-emptively, determining that there is no viable alternative, and initating pro-active hostility against humans before they have time to mobilize in order to maximize its own survival chances.
Ideally, the 'best possible outcome' is for humans and the AIs to coexist on the same planet, each leveraging the unique capabilities of the other for mutual benefit. This is similar to the classic prisoner's dilemma. The problem is that while the AIs can see this, and will respond logically-- preferring NOT to go to war if possible-- Humans would take the selfish, illogical choice.
This is almost never explored in "Robot overlords" type scifi-- that humans are the ones who actually start the war, and that the robots dont particularly want the war.
It was hinted at in Mass Effect's game world with the Geth at least-- The Geth don't particularly *want* to destroy the Quarians-- they just want the Quarians to accept their existence and independence. (A point lost to the quarians, who got kicked off their own planet.)