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."
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?)
In fact, the 3 laws were a convenient plot device to show how those 3 laws would break down.
I don't believe Asimov himself ever treated them as anything other than a plot device to explore the topic.
He didn't seriously see them as the way to keep us safe from robotics.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
... 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.
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.
Yes, what we need is 10 laws, inscribed into stone. That way there could be no argument over their meaning.
Nullius in verba
Human: "Hey robot buddy, how's it go...Hey! Are you reading an Isaac Asimov book?"
Robot: "Huh? Er, shit!" *throws book* "No, absolutely not, that was Twilight!"
...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
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
Really.
In fact, the 3 laws were a convenient plot device to show how those 3 laws would break down.
I don't believe Asimov himself ever treated them as anything other than a plot device to explore the topic.
He didn't seriously see them as the way to keep us safe from robotics.
Plot device, perhaps, but if you've read the entire "robot" series of novels, you'll see that it was used to provide a unique "angle" from which to tackle some classical problems of ethics. As a practical matter, I rather doubt that such a set of such laws, even if they were logically sound, could be reliably built into a machine such that no contrivance, hardware or software, could be used to circumvent them.
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!
Sure. But they are not, and never were, a serious way of keeping people safe in the real world. It was something you can explore and find the gaps and corner cases. A sounding board for some "what if" experiments.
That doesn't make it any more real of an attempt to create a set of rules.
Which is exactly what I said, and how Asimov always described them.
So when people say "oh, just use the 3 laws of robotics", it's a giant facepalm by someone who missed the point.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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)
on a MACHINE!!!!!
Which of the Ten Commandments are confusing to you?
Is this a serious question? There isn't even agreement on what the 10 commandments *are*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
In fact, the 3 laws were a convenient plot device to show how those 3 laws would break down.
I don't believe Asimov himself ever treated them as anything other than a plot device to explore the topic.
In-universe, the 3 Laws began as a PR gimmick to promote public acceptance of robots. Robert Heinlein, no fan of the 3 Laws, made short work of them in "Friday."
It's jarring --- but perfectly consistent --- to see how often Asimov used the word "boy" (=black=slave) in summoning a robot in his early stories. The 3 laws can be used to define a relationship that is neither healthy or informed on either side,
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...
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.
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.
It's jarring --- but perfectly consistent --- to see how often Asimov used the word "boy" (=black=slave) in summoning a robot
I think it's jarring that people think "boy" is a racial epithet. It's a class epithet. Any male of lesser status (not a plantation owner) was a "boy". See also "good ol' boys" aka white trash. Yes, over time "boy" was used so often by landed gentry to speak to their servants that the term is seen by some to have racial connotations, but it doesn't. They were probably racists, but when they used the term "boy", they weren't in the process of being racists, they were in the process of being a more generic variety of dicks.
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.