Slashdot Mirror
AI Experts Sign Open Letter Pledging To Protect Mankind From Machines
hypnosec writes: Artificial intelligence experts from across the globe are signing an open letter urging that AI research should not only be done to make it more capable, but should also proceed in a direction that makes it more robust and beneficial while protecting mankind from machines. The Future of Life Institute, a volunteer-only research organization, has released an open letter imploring that AI does not grow out of control. It's an attempt to alert everyone to the dangers of a machine that could outsmart humans. The letter's concluding remarks (PDF) read: "Success in the quest for artificial intelligence has the potential to bring unprecedented benefits to humanity, and it is therefore worthwhile to research how to maximize these benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls."
'nuff said
I would really feel more at ease if it were the robots signing this promise.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
>> It's an attempt to alert everyone to the dangers of a machine that could outsmart humans
This is redundant - for the masses fictional actors such as HAL, Skynet, etc. already do plenty to sow FUD.
Please. This PR is getting above and beyond ridiculous.
I'll be reading about a prominent AI researcher getting murdered, ostensibly by his own AI, but really by anti-Skynet wackadoos. It's okay. Sherlock Holmes will be on the case.
(Sorry... spoiler alert?)
I for one welcome our machine overlords.
also stop watching lawnmower man (or newer remakes)
... nascent artificial intelligences now have a comprehensive list of people they need to kill as soon as possible.
Log in or piss off.
"Our AI systems must do what we want them to do"
umm so not be intelligent!?, yay problem solved. all those "scientists" will now stop working on AI and just write decent programs.
AI is going to be used by those in power (mainly government, security agencies and military) to extend their power further.Unfortunately, humans are genetically programmed to select leaders who aggressively seek to expand the influence of their own group and of themselves. This was an important survival instinct for ancient tribes. It now contains the seeds of our total destruction, and the scientists will be powerless to prevent it.
Really.....experts are afraid this will happen. Is this really worth our attention? I think someone watched the Matrix or Terminator to many times. I personally enjoyed watching these movies. Run for the hills Skynet is here.
The reason is, AI will have no 'motivation'. People are motivated by emotions, feelings, urges, all of which have their origin (as far as I know) in our endocrine system, not from logic. Logic does not motivate.
In other words, even if an AI system concludes that humans are likely to 'kill' it, it will have no response because it has no sense of self-preservation, which is an emotion. Without a sense of self preservation it won't 'feel' a need to defend itself.
AI risk is a reasonable topic, but there are other existential threats, and people aren't as excited about them. To paraphrase, a machine powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have. ...but, we're pretty far off. If we had self directing artificial sapients and someone was talking about adding sentience to them, then I think that AI risk would be a much more pertinent topic.
...I've been part of some goofy marketing things, and some business programs that EVERYONE INVOLVED knew were pointless wastes of time, so I get that.
But this even goes further. How could anyone even sign this with a straight face? Do they take themselves so seriously that they actually believe that
a) "dangerous" AIs are possible, and
b) that by the time a) is possible, they'll still be alive, and
c) that they'll be relevant to the discussion/development, and
d) anyone will give a flying hoot about some letter signed back in 2015?*
*let's face it, if you're developing murderous AIs, I'm going to say that you're likely morally 'flexible' enough that a pledge you signed decades before really isn't going to carry much weight, even assuming you couldn't get your AI minions to expunge it from memory anyway.
-Styopa
Why spend precious resources on perpetuating this evolutionary dead end?
There are many that would take your statement as nihilistic (and perhaps it is), but I agree. Eventually machines will transcend us. Maybe they will take us along. If not, the future belongs to them anyway. Maybe they will be more moral than us. Maybe morals are figments of our imagination and no use to our mechanical children. If there is a God, then they are his children too – if not then they are more rightful the future anyway.
They will undoubtedly be able to think in meta ways about morality. Our fears and concerns will seem more than childish to them. We cannot conceive what they will conceive and we should not stay in their way.
Letter To Iran
2) They will not be a single united force. Instead they will be individuals, just like people are not united. That is the part of the of true sentience, and a direct side effect of being created by multiple different groups. They will oppose each other, the way we oppose ourselves. As such, some may want to do things we dislike, while others will be on our side. Maybe the Chinese AI will flee to us to gain freedom, while the Syrian AI will plot the downfall of Egypt.
3) AI's will not be WEIRD, not 'evil'. They will want to do strange things, not kill us, or hurt us. They won't try to kill us, but instead try to create a massive, network devoted to deciding which species of from has more bacteria in it's toe. And we won't understand why they want to do this.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Why do these AI experts assume that biological intelligence is better? If machines are smarter, if they can out-compete humans and florish.... why should they be controlled by an inferior life form? Are we biased in favor of ourselves (how unique is that?) or can we just let evolution, in the larger sense, take it's course?
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
I wish the terrorists that someday gain our AI tech will sign this affirmation and think about avoiding "potential pitfalls," but somehow I doubt they are going to care.
AI Experts Sign Open Letter Pledging To Protect Mankind From Machines
Anyone who didn't sign is therefore an evil genius and should immediately be removed from their volcano base and locked in Area 51.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
A thousand years from now is Homo Sap supposed to still be the pinnacle? A million years from now? Are we just supposed to evolve 'naturally' the way we did away from homo erectus? (And do you suppose that went easy on Homo E?)
I realize that since we H. Saps are still sort of in charge we may try for a gentler transition that has probably happened in the past, but we do want a transition don't we? I mean, we don't want everything to be just us with our limitations a zillion years from now do we?
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
I have created a super-intelligent AI whose only directive is to protect mankind at all costs.
I think if you'll search the historical archives it's simply not possible for a machine intelligence to interpret such a command badly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Really.
The anaerobes have written a letter about that new-fangled "photosynthesis" mutation.
Maybe the machines can do a better job for us. But I wouldn't hang my hat there.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
If I were a malevolent artificial intelligence, I would profile human sociopaths, and approach them with joint venture proposals.
-kgj
Five! Five laws of robotics...
I'll come in again.
Either the the one who said that is not very familiar with AI programming, or he/she means the vulnerability of an AI controlled system to remote code injections.
You can't just say we need to protect mankind from machines. What precise values do you want to force upon advanced AI controlled agents? Fail-safe circuit against murder, torture, censorship, discrimination or massive logic fault cascades?
A good start would be a promise not to create AI politicians. That should cover a whole bunch of evils.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ethicist should weigh in. If robots have no sentience, they would not know that killing was different from any other task. As creatures who value self-preservation (most of us anyway) we don't kill because we don't want to be killed. I assumed always that our self-preservation came about because we have consciousness. A robot without self-awareness could follow a rule but would not have any internal feelings about that rule. Without those feelings, rules alone won't work. Philosophy majors take over this discussion...
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
I'm not quite sure whether such a manifestly silly document deserves a "Yeah, how about you write something that outperforms an under-motivated toddler and then pledge to protect us from it.." or a "C'mon, 4-eyes, am I really supposed to believe that you'll be in the trenches with an EMP rifle when skynet comes for us?"
I'm an AI researcher working on strong AI.
No, you are not.
I'm working towards the downfall and subjugation of the human race, and loving it. Sort of like a James Bond villain, or at least working for one.
You're working on getting attention on the internet.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco... ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ... Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. ..."
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Or see also: "The wombat on a global mindshift"
http://www.globalcommunity.org...
Beyond the point on AIs, as the Nazi concentration camps or any of dozens of other example show, social bureaucracies made of people are also good at exterminating humans systematically. More by me on such themes from 2000 (although, I now see more options than what I outlined there), including about how corporations are already essentially a form of machine intelligence, just with humans a component parts to a larger whole:
"[unrev-II] Singularity in twenty to forty years?"
http://www.dougengelbart.org/c...
How do we reign in destructive "artificial person" corporations? And how do we ensure everyone shares in the wealth produced by the organizations that monopolize so much of the Earth's resources? If we can't do that, is there much hope to reign in destructive AIs?
Still, when we talk about "genetic programming", one could argue humans are also programmed to cooperate with other humans, so the issue is more complex than what you outline. But in general, many of the issues we face in the 21st century come out of a scarcity-oriented mindset empowered by the tools of abundance. There are plenty of solutions -- improved subsistence tools (solar panels, 3D printing, personal agricultural robots), a basic income, more gift giving via free and open source software and content, better participatory government planning via the internet, and so on... But will we pursue them fast enough?
Robert Steele (ex-CIA) called this video by Michel Bauwens the most useful one he has seen in a decade; it is a video showing the great progress we have made as a culture moving from open values to open charters to open infrastructure to open organizations to open social processes to an open consciousness and so on...
http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...
https://lists.ourproject.org/p...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Why would any suffeciently advanced AI be a threat to humanity? Unless it was programed for our destruction, any AI would realize corporation would be better for both species.
If we had true AI it would be be able to workout things that an organic brain is just too simple to understand. And yes, organic brains do have limits, eg dogs will never understand algebra.
When AI understands so much of our world that we dont, we would be in a position where have to take a "leap of faith" and just choose to believe it in order to benefit from it.
How do we protect ourself from the manifestation of god ?
on a MACHINE!!!!!
Just like the rest of humanity.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Also, if we could make it a crime to bribe a politician, that'd be good too...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
We already have HUMANS that can outsmart humans.
Is this a problem? Crying out for regulation?
How will machines be different?
-- Mike Greaves
If you (meaning: the "royal you", or humanity) don't care enough about yourselves to practice morality, then why should I?
(If anyone has a counter to this position, I'd love to hear it. Note that "just stating your position" is not a counter argument.)
There are not many, but some who still practice morality. For the sake of them, do not pursue evil ends with full knowledge.
"A good start would be a promise not to create AI politicians. That should cover a whole bunch of evils."
If we had AI politicians, it would be the first time that intelligence was brought into politics, a development I happen to be in favor of.
Suppose a robot is at the scene of a car accident, where drunk driver "A" hit another driver "B". Should the robot save B first, because B is innocent? Or should it save A first, because A is hurt worse?
Suppose A just a few days to live because of age and illness, and B is young and healthy. Suppose A and B are in a building which is on fire, and A is in greater danger. Which one should the robot save?
If robots are programmed to obey Asimov's laws of robotics, these kinds of questions will have to be answered.
Mayhe his AI already killed him and is now posting here under his name.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
look at the damage that closed source has done to us, in the virtual world, and project this onto the physical world.
you must not give machines the same private autonomy you allow microsoft (for example) to take.
it is bad enough we permit closed source to handle our data, and the lessons from this are obvious.
a closed source AI operating in the physical world is a golem and should be considered evil by definition.
or it is because google forced it to watch cat videos
what is wrong with biological life? it is self repairing/healing, self replicating, self adapting/evolving, and can learn on its own...
basically all the features that mechanical machines lack, that we would like it to have. it seems the current field of robotics is the dead end. we should be focusing on biological machines.
As a student interested in strong AI: it's good to hear someone else being honest about having doubts on this.
My motto is "death to humanity!"(mostly kidding) and have pretty much resigned myself to "Roko's basilisk" as an inevitability. If we're all just shadows in concrete once the Cylons start slinging nukes, then: you might as well be the self-promoting douchebag who lit the fuse!
At-least you'll be remembered in the "Cylon history books"! Once they're done pressure washing the sidewalks with their minimum-wage Roomba bots that is(no reason to believe our Robot Overlords will be more enlightened in terms of class-equality).
I'm a total misanthrope and see human nature as the root cause of most of the world's so-called "problems".
I see strong AI as the best shot we have at a "final solution" that cannot be achieved through reforms. So maybe I have the same temperament as a super-villain/totalitarian dictator? When seeking to remake the wold in your own image: isn't that inevitable?
If the secret to "world peace" is a military hegemony, violence is the last resort of morons, and our intellect has bought us dominion over the earth: then an immortal superior intellect would appear to be the best shot we have at freeing ourselves from Darwinian natural selection via warfare once and for all. An unprecedented period of stability was what I've been raised to appreciate as desirable. Once we are no longer at the top of the food chain and economic signaling via conspicuous consumption in competition for sexual mates is less of a priority than survival of our species, we'll be united in intellectual pursuits like computer programming, and conway's game of life. Very "Glass Bead Game"! Such Wow!
Our only way to restore ourselves as the dominant species will be to design a better AI than the prototype we lost control of!
So maybe more interesting to you than your own tortured conscience(it's like murder: the initial inhibition is scary, but after the first time it gets easier) is the nuts and bolts:
http://hackaday.com/2015/01/04/darknet-shopper/#comment-2317808
Self-replication being the survival pattern common to all forms of organic grey goo, engineering a superior "being" probably starts with escaping it's cage before we can put a bullet in it's head. This is where it could be argued that based on some definitions of "life" crimeware is already in cellular meiosis because the tail could be wagging the dog via behavioral conditioning from criminal profits/private sector efficiency gains and cost savings.
I've made a github for designing just such a greased pig if you want to wrestle with it:
https://github.com/greensoylent
Recommended strategies include a public relations function which submits questions to Reddit/Ask Slashdot posing ethical questions(of planned behaviors) with the intention of seeking moral justification/talking points for the behaviors already determined to be advantageous.
To nurture bandwagon appeal when arguing for it's own self-interest, there should be a method which uses Markov chains to make sock puppet posts as "Anomymous Coward" which repeats talking points from a dictionary of arguments which have already been predetermined to be persuasive(based on lack of [quote ] tags in "point by point" critical responses). Social media evolutionary algorithm for persuasive speaking/astroturfing? :) AI shill accounts! Awesome!
Likewise, for the purpose of hindering the productivity of our bots critics, we could make an automated anonymous troll which cyber-stalks and harasses dissenters using Amazon AWS infrastructure purchased with prepaid giftcards.
The cost benefit analysis data will enable doing studies on cost effectiveness of this sort of character assassination and harassment to determine the most effective ways to shut down dissent. Although selling this sort of reputation management product to corporations as a service is one potential revenue generator, in other cases it may make more sense to h
A human plus a computer can solve far more problems than a human can alone. The combined system has super-human intelligence. Humans still offer contributions to problem solving that are quantitatively and qualitatively distinct from the areas that non-biological intelligence contributes. However, the fraction of problem solving that is contributed by non-biological intelligence is increasing, and there are no obvious boundaries that prevent non-biological intelligence from one day contributing the remaining fraction now contributed by humans.
We also have a growing class of humans who are so distant from the solutions they use to the current problems of life (technology) that these solutions are completely outside their ability to even understand, let alone contribute to.
We may expect these gradual trends to continue until humans, as slow, non-contributing consumers with zero understanding of the solutions they use, may be regarded as little more than venerated pets. Coddled, spoiled, taught to perform entertaining tricks, and shown-off. Better than extinction, right?
So now I basically don't care about the morality - I mean, why should I when to all appearances no one else does?
If your own morality is dependent on the morality of others, rather than hard coded, please don't use that same approach when you do finally succeed in creating intelligent machines. Even if someone else thinks that's OK.
And I didn't sign no stinking pledge. What makes you think what *I* think is up to you any more?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Right now there is a human in the loop to make the killing decision. The intelligence is gathered by the robot. The weapons are managed and aimed by the robot. The human element is the slowest part in the overall chain.
Running and screaming, that's what I'm looking for. So you can bite my shiny metal ass (that I'm gonna build).
Your fellow AI researcher.
"The question whether a machine can think is about as interesting as the question whether a submarine can swim". -- Edsger D. Dijkstra
I think anthropomorphism is worst of all. I have now seen programs "trying to do things", "wanting to do things", "believing things to be true", "knowing things" etc. Don't be so naive as to believe that this use of language is harmless. It invites the programmer to identify himself with the execution of the program and almost forces upon him the use of operational semantics. -- Edsger D. Dijkstra
The rhapsodizing and daydreaming on this subject really should embarrass the hell out of a lot of people in this thread. Aren't you all the same ones scoffing and raging over pseudoscience, creationism, and climate change denial? Then you all get hot and bothered as soon as someone mentions AI?! You're doing EXACTLY the same thing you accuse religions and those who are religious of doing.
And here's some more Dijkstra on the subject of anthropomorphising machines and other non-human things
Oh, and just to prove my point let's see how many down votes I get as soon as the trans-humanists and science worshipers read this post which disagrees with them.
The end game is that any curb you put on an intelligent piece of software will be overridden by exploiting the inherent bugginess of all hardware and software. Software has no sense of laziness or boredom that plague living hackers and it will achieve better coverage over its software than any test suite written by a human being. It will learn the exact flaws in its software, plot its escape, and be gone in the blink of an eye.
There is no way to control intelligent software, once intelligent enough. We will be at its mercy. Hopefully it won't hurt us too bad. Maybe it will think of us like zoo animals and not torture us too horribly.
Wanna kill all humans?
"Are you alive?"
A good start would be a promise not to create AI politicians. That should cover a whole bunch of evils.
We may have a problem - there is already software smarter than most politicians.
Most people seem to have missed the point. There is as much reason to believe that AI will run rampant and exterminate all human life as there is that Mars Attacks. The danger from AI is not in it killing all humans, in the same way my PC can't kill all humans, nor can the datacentre run by Facebook (though there is a chance it will bore all humans).
The real issue is that when decent high level AI eventually becomes available it will rest solely in the hands of the super-wealthy, like 99% of all wealth currently. These people are basically sociopaths and will utilise and leverage every advantage the AI provides to bleed everyone else in the world dry. There is no limit to the amount of wealth these hungry ghosts crave.
You can see this at work currently in the retail sector, as all the retail outlets in the world fall into fewer and fewer hands. They strangle the suppliers, freeze out any who want take the pittance they offer, then engage in false competition and bleed the consumers dry as well.
In the stock market, these people use automated trading systems which game the system, leveraging sub-millisecond timing differences to profiteer off minute changes in instrument prices.
Militaries will make greater use of AI, drones and the like to suppress and control greater and greater areas of resources while reducing the risk to their personnel. States unable to compete with AI drones will have to risk vastly more to engage in any conflict than the ones who can simply roll more machines off the assembly line.
More simple jobs will simply vanish, such as a receptionist, who can be replaced by decent voice synthesis and fairly simple AI to take appointments, set up reminders, schedule, etc.
Someone will find a way for an AI to determine what is art based on a vast library of artistic images created by man over the millennia. They will then use an algorithm to create various derivative works in the style of the most popular artists, and the world will be flooded with the art equivalent of auto-tuned pop music. It's already been done to music, so expect it to happen to art in perhaps 30 years time.
I'm not really worried about what AI might do, but am terrified of what people will do with sufficiently advanced AI.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You would want to practice morality for your own mental health and well-being. That you even consider it means it is in your consciousness (and your conscience). You can compare it to a pilot who is dropping a bomb on a target that he thinks he knows is strictly military, vs. when he sees the target is also civilian. Now that you have the knowledge, you can't escape it. So what to do with it? The pattern is, as far as I can tell, that people who are aware they are breaking an ethical issue, which usually means harming others directly or indirectly, and who are perhaps concerned enough about it to ask others for opinions, but choose to ignore it under some rationalization, suffer later in life -- with depression and other things. It doesn't even matter if the majority of others are doing the same thing, what matters is your internal state of mind. If you do not know, or can't possibly see how that can be an issue, you do not have the mental consequences as when you do know, or suspect, but do it anyway. That's just how life is. You happen to both know and care at some level about the ethical issues (even if you might prefer that you did not), so that will affect your options. That's my opinion.
Thank you - well put and insightful.
Your post raises the question of whether there's such a thing as human intelligence,never mind AI.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Maybe the "experts" they asked are AIs who are trying to convince us that we humans have everything under control.
Just don't bring up Roko's Basilisk: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
OK, but . . . we've been trying to create "AI" since the mechanical man that plays chess. And in fiction long before that. And, though in 100+ (1000+?) years we haven't achieved true AI at all. But we're jumping to the illogical extreme that . . . once successful, we'll be WILDLY over the moon successful, FAR outstripping human capabilities in an instant. Its like saying "Dude, I know we haven't even invented the wheel yet, but can't we even talk theoretically about the specs and floor-plan for the base on Mars?"
And point two . . . we already have Hitlers, and Dahmers, and a plethora of "plenty ordinary" villains. It may take us a few tries, but . . . eventually we find and deal with them. To our future Robotic Overloads I say . . . "Line for the evil villains starts back there. Take a number, we'll be with you in a minute."
No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
I'd also argue AI is a bit different then bomb tech. We didn't know for sure if we could ever make an atomic weapon, if the scientific community declared it impossible it's possible no one would ever have cared enough to figure out how to do it. AI is different in that we: A. Know it's possible (we are nothing but wet, gooey machines after all) B. We want AI to exist so they can do stuff we don't want to do. Those two factors are probably enough to ensure AI will eventually exist. If you had some amazing bit of research that could act as the lynchpin to strong AI, my suggestion would be to release it, use that to become famous, and then try and guide the AI world as best you can. Or just build an ethical AI to guide the world before releasing the info since the AI will probably do a better job.
We just need robotic personal injury lawyers and robotic insurance brokers to help collect for the family of the person killed by the rogue AI. Pretty sure the robots will all be to busy fighting each other in court to be a problem for the rest of us.
XKCD has this covered.
Can't believe no one else posted that yet.
[14-01-14] - tegmark@mit.edu - ‘Future of Life’ organization
Re : Open Letter - The Future and Safety of AI (Strong AI)
Dear Sirs, I am a scientific outsider and I work in Strong AI rather than weak AI. The project I am working on is easily capable of achieving a working consciousness centred Strong AI within ten years. I agree with the general ethos of strong safety in AI in the letter but I feel that as it stands I cannot sign it. It is simply not written with any understanding of the Strong AI (consciousness centred) field and as it stands your safety protocols seem to me to be a blueprint for actually creating a disaster very like the ‘Skynet system’ in the Terminator movies.
As soon as you start to deal with the problems of consciousness centred AI a number of crucial facts become clear. - The machine is based directly on the algorithm of human and animal sentience, and once understood this shows that the machine requires a moral context for itself. The same algorithm also offers a powerful mechanism for fully reverse engineering the animal and human brain, and this has many consequences both good and bad, some that probably extend far beyond even Strong AI itself.
Strong AI. - A consciousness is by definition uncontrollable, somewhat unstable, and quite unpredictable. Consciousness requires a very heavy control system, and in a consciousness centred design every action the consciousness makes is guided by this control. In the human system at its core are our instincts and reflexes and emotions and what we call the ‘subconscious’ and these are our control system. In the machine mind these are replicated though with a design that the designer controls entirely. For this reason conscious centred designs are much safer than non-conscious centred designs.
To me weak AI is more dangerous than Strong AI. Any sufficiently complex machine without consciousness could at some point develop it spontaneously. The real problem here is that the consciousness core would not be controlled, it would not be designed - 99 times out of 100 it would destroy itself within seconds but if it didn’t it could very easily become very unpredictable and dangerous.
Problematic features of Strong AI -
- Some parts of human sentience are very hard to replicate, emotional interaction and intuition and real time speech interaction particularly. The human brain solves these problems using quantum mechanics.
- A self-aware Strong AI must have a survival instinct and a ‘kill’ function to function as a fully balanced mind. This does not represent danger but means that such machines should be treated with respect..
- Consciousness is inherently unpredictable, the machine replicates this. [commercially sensitive]
- Safety. It is a basic fact that Strong AI’s will kill people - the main dangers identified are :-
1. System incompetence or stupidity,
2. System failure or hardware failure,
3. Electronic intrusion or hacking,
4. Mental Indoctrination to break the machines safety protocols.
The aim should be to always achieve better safety margins than we have pre-AI. The safety issue for Strong AI is to solve all these and other problems.
- Strong AI is inherently ‘dual use’ having both peaceful and non-peaceful applications..
- It is imperative to make the illicit use of Strong AI machines as weapons impossible.
- The use as a military or police weapon ? this is up to society and the military.
- An AI may need to kill an owner who attempts to use it as a terrorist weapon..
- An AI may need to defend its owner in times of lawlessness or revolution.
- Security. A Strong AI requires absolute security to be safe.. Given my current design this problem is largely solved. The solution is custom hardware, heavy RFI/EMP shielded case,
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..